How can this be a plan for the future when no proposed route/bike-friendly street or any other marking on the map actually reaches what we know will be subway stations at Wilshire/La Brea or Wilshire/Fairfax

It really works.

The bike department has been marginalized within and without the DOT. Now, as signaled by its own operating vocabulary, that marginalization has become deeply internalized.

We're capable of good government here in Los Angeles. The bike department, perhaps, should stop talking about tangible things for a while. It needs to look inside itself and examine why it has taken such a negative tone. It needs to finally take responsibility for darkening the public dialogue with broken promises, disheartening language, excuses, and instant dismissal of good ideas (even "infeasible" ones!)

It should then promise to move forward in a way that is relentlessly positive - especially when setbacks occur. It can do so by sharing those setbacks with us, and by asking us for our empathy and commiseration, and offering us the same. Our common goal - and we need to remind each other of this all the time, and we must be happy warriors, in spite of how difficult the task - is to turn in a new direction the most impressive, well-fortified, and massively engineered empire of motorized transportation humankind has ever built.

Why would such a thing not happen? Fear. Over and over, we're told that something should be said, or would be said, but can't, because somebody would get fired. Time to forbid that statement, as well, because the more it is repeated, the more all of us believe it. Do our well-meaning representatives at the bicycle department truly believe that opening a fair dialogue about the big picture would lead to such punishment?

If so, what an ugly organization they work for. And there's a remedy.

My message to the department is that the constituency that can change your bosses isn't your bosses. The truth is that you are invisible to the apparatchiks above and around you.

Your champion is the bike community.

We have the power to make the bureaucracy listen.

The catch is that you have to ask us. You have to show us that it is worthwhile. Get us on your side, and we will fight for you. Do that, and the language will take care of itself.

@Nate - From the letter that accompanied the bike plan, the specific definition of infeasible: "Key corridors where bike lanes are desirable, but would require either roadway widening or the removal of travel lanes or on-street parking." In a way this is true... what I (and others I think) would like is for the LADOT to commit to some travel lane [sic] removal (ie: a road diet) and/or removing some parking to make way for bike lanes. The LADOT states that they can't do this, due to possible CEQA challenges... but, like Stephen states, it appears to less about CEQA than about prioritizing dedicating as many inches of roadway as possible to cars, cars, and more cars.

Many relatively-easy bike lane projects implemented in L.A., including Silver Lake Boulevard and Griffith Park Boulevard, have ended up removing some parking. (This has been mostly due to the LADOT deepening left turn pockets... but that's another story.) If the standard is "no lane/parking removal nowhere," then we're likely to get no (or nearly no) new bike lanes.

"Currently infeasible" while better than just "infeasible" still sounds like "NO"... I'd rather get wording like "potential" or "study" which sounds like "maybe."

I'd like "infeasible" defined more specifically.

I think I'm remembering correctly that Alta has presented at various conferences aspects of their involvement in this process, and that they highlighted some nitty gritty detective work they did in preparing this map.

I think I remember, specifically, GIS analysis that kept notes on street widths and intersection dynamics. Armed with that knowledge, bicycling advocates could track down what's on the books for these streets, what the hang-ups are, and which government entities would need to be pushed to fix those problems.

Maybe we should call these segments, "currently infeasible"?

As the consultant put it "We don't take direction from the City Council, we work for the Department."

Do not underestimate the ability of the "Department" to shape the direction and the content of an endeavor such as the Bike Plan.

I'd love to be wrong on this but the outreach alone indicates that the "Department" either doesn't get it or refuses to do it but either way, we're not getting the "process" that the City Council has directed.

It might be more likable to be more agreeable and it might be polite to feign optimism as we're handed mediocrity as a vision document but rest assured, this Bike Plan is the work product of a department that is committed to moving cars through the City of Los Angeles.

We're not a priority and these Bike Plan Maps are the evidence.

Any CEQA lawyers out there who could weigh in on this??

"Bike friendly streets" is a much better phrase than "bike boulevard" for the sales pitch, for sure.

If the cultural concept of a "bike friendly street" or even of a "Livable Street" could be sold in Los Angeles that would certainly be a positive benefit for all users of the roads.

Without the Mayor on board however, I am inclined to believe that precious little of the updated LABMP will be implemented.

Also, without an organized forced akin to the powerful Equestrian lobby, the needs and rights of pedestrians and cyclists alike will likely continue to go unnoticed.

That said, I can't help but agree with Joe Linton when he says,

"I’ve been looking over the maps and I have yet to find any proposed bicycle facilities on them that I would actually oppose. I think that if the city would actually implement all the facilities shown on the maps, Los Angeles would take a step in the right direction toward being a bicycle-friendly city… only a step in the right direction, though, and there would still be a lot of work left to do.

I support what’s proposed in the plan, even though I don’t think that plan goes far enough. I don’t think that the facilities in the plan are stupid, wrong, or undesirable. I just think that, for us to make bicycling safe and convenient in Los Angeles, we will need to do all these facilities and more."

I have to agree with Josef that it is VERY important not to abandon potential bike lane alignments from the 1996 Draft Plan as infeasible. My understanding is that based on the recent San Francisco Bike Master Plan
CEQA ruling, projects such as bike lanes which displace parking and/or shift vehicular traffic patterns in ways that could conceivably result in a potentially significant environmental impact require CEQA analysis. The cost of that analysis, and the potential for obstruction due to lawsuits regarding its adequacy, can wind up meaning many good bike lane and traffic calming/bike friendly streets projects cost twice as much and don't get implemented.

I think you're right Josef, it is a problem that the only facilities that get in the plan are the easiest to do... and even those aren't easy in L.A. The plan does designate what resources the LADOT will pursue... so, if a facility is not in the bike plan, then it's more difficult for a community effort to get funded.

The nuance I add to Josef's point, though, is that I would suggest that the limiting factor on most L.A. bike projects is not funding, but political will. Bike lanes, sharrows, and even bike boulevards are cheap - and can generally be done within the city transportation budget. Road diets, parking removal, re-striping are cheap fiscally... but not easy politically... which means we bike advocates need to organize, to build coalitions, and get specific demands implemented.

"The plan does not limit what bike advocates can push for. There are no bike lanes designated for Vermont Avenue in the Bike Plan. If bicyclists and neighbors and businesses come together and push for bike lanes on Vermont, and a broad consensus forms around getting bike lanes on Vermont, and the City Council and the Mayor get behind bike lanes on Vermont, then it doesn’t matter what’s in the plan. We bike advocates don’t need to limit our advocacy to what’s in the plan. We should continue to push the political envelope, regardless of what the plan says."

This document is the foundation upon which future funding requests to the State, the Feds, and the MTA will be made for bike facilities. If it is not in the plan, then everything must be done from scratch every time a neighborhood comes together around bicycling issues. If there are no bike-friendly measurements and standards included in this plan (the same omission occurred in past plans), then we're doubly screwed in the future - as we'll have to make the case, every time, without official measurement regarding safety, livability, health, property values, and the state of local retailers.

There is a bizarre attitude from Michelle Mowery that, if something significant is put in the plan to secure cyclists' rights to the road that the plan will never make it out of council and never achieve anything for cyclists. However, if there is nothing substantive in the plan, what the hell is the point of making one in the first place?!

I'm not asking the LADOT to do all the heavy lifting on this. There are zoning designations that the Planning Dept has in specific plans that will most likely never come to fruition - but they are on the books and serve up criteria for those trying to develop a parcel in an area. What is wrong with the city setting its own table properly, so that when (or if) the food arrives it will be ready to eat?

Planning stated the streets must be feasible to be considered for the bike plan. We need to start making unfeasible streets feasible by removing parking. Is the bike plan perfect? NO Do I hate it? NO. Do I think it can be tweaked to make it better, YES.

Again, I want CC to do something meaningful and real for bikes. I want space on the streets for bike lanes.
I want street parking eliminated on some east/west and north/south streets and I want bike lanes instead of parking.

I want a “motions” from city council members, BAC, NC to get rid of some street parking and put in bike lanes throughout the city.

Start writing letters to the all CC members, BAC members and all NC’s to support bikes by eliminating SOME on street parking and putting in bike lanes.

This week a bicyclist riding on the sidewalk was killed by a truck turning right. Would it have made difference if there was a bike lane on this street with parking removed?
Just like that DIY article said…most cars/trucks on the road stay within the lines on the road. If there was a bike lane maybe the truck would have respected the bicyclist space on the road.

As you can tell my focus is space on the road for bicyclists.

My last item is I would like the mayor’s office with local state politicians to re-introduce bill AB 1941 that Santa Barbara Assemblymen, Pedro Nava introduce in 2006 that would have changed
the current law that requires a vehicle to pass bicycles to the left at a "safe distance." His bill AB 1941 would change this requirement so that vehicles must now pass bicycles at a minimum distance of 3 feet. Specifically, this change will be reflected in Vehicle Code section 21750. AB 1941 would of also list penalties assigned to vehicle operators that violate this section.

Not only would it give bicyclist space but it would have given the police the tools to help their investigation of an accident involving a bicycles. All the police would have to do is pull a measuring tape and if it was less the 3 feet the truck or car is a fault. No debate about whose fault it was.

But alas the trucker’s lobby and the bus operators lobby killed it in Sacramento.
Like they need any more room on the road!
This time it will take power and money to beat the truckers lobby and bus operators lobby in Sacramento. If the bicycle community don’t get more political clout we will never be respected.
Write the mayor and CC to get this re-introduced, today.

As for bike boulevards, the problem is in how they are sold. No property owner wants a "bike boulevard" on their street. But if you tell them you have a plan that will provide traffic calming measures, eliminating the need for speed bumps while still maintaining local access, they're interested.

Tell them it will include a neighborhood beautification plan that will make the street more walkable and inviting, and improve safety — and probably increase property values. Tell them it will attract more shoppers to local businesses, and show them how similar plans in other cities have resulted in increased store traffic and sales revenue.

Then tell them they can get all this for free, with no increase in local taxes — all they have to do is accept this thing called a bike boulevard as a part of the plan in order to get the funding, and I guarantee you, they'll be sold.