As I described above, the initial versions posted on-line in September contained non-existent streets, typos, omissions, unsorted lists, etc.

After the October 6th BAC meeting raised the issue of missing street names, the downloadable document changed to include street names. After this October 9th Streetsblog article appeared, some of the errors and typos have disappeared, and some lists have been changed in other ways (new sorts at least – hard to tell what all has been changed without doing line by line comparisons.) As far as I know, these changes keep being made with no notice going to anyone as to what documents have been updated, nor what the changes are.

BAC members present at yesterday’s meeting unanimously requested that any document changes (made since the initial September release and going forward from now) include 1) the date of revision, 2) a list of what changed, and 3) that the prior versions initially released in September remain available on-line.

Department of City Planning’s (DCP) Jordann Turner stated that he would follow up with Alta (the city’s bike plan consultant) regarding document changes made since September. Both DCP’s Jordann Turner and DCP’s Helene Bibas stated that for the current draft, there will “no changes going forward” to the draft documents online.

I take this to mean no more unannounced changes to the current online draft documents. Bibas did state that the DCP is planning to do a new “formal” draft – expected to be released in December. The new formal draft is likely to be substantially different than what is online – based on the input that DCP is receiving at meetings and in writing.

“Is there any documentation of the steps everyone went through to get the Silver Lake-Sunset Bike Lane put in?” It’s a longer story, but suffice it to say that the Silver Lake lanes went in because the LA County Bicycle Coalition board (when I was board president) and staff (when Ron Milam was ED) did a lot of work with neighborhood groups and put pressure on the council office. Sunset was a little easier, after seeing the huge outpouring of support on Silver Lake lanes, the council office ok-ed the Sunset lanes easily.

“And why isn’t anyone organizing to target the very individual bike projects you mention on York and Figueroa?” Most folks aren’t aware of what’s in the plan. Also, it takes some work, some time, some resources… and in some cases we’ve pushed hard and the LADOT has stalled and done nothing. This was the case with Fletcher Drive… DOT waited us out despite a campaign in ~2001-2002. It’s not just about bicyclists pushing these, but about building some broader neighborhood consensus to push for them. Some groups are doing some of this: LACBC (current campaigns for Reseda, 4th Street,) CICLE (premature announcement, but we’re going to be organizing a campaign for the York lanes – join us!) and some BAC leaders (BAC chair Glenn Bailey’s work made the new mile of Reseda lanes happen.)

“Also, you refer to the 1996 plan, but what about the plan after that, the 2001 plan, does that supersede 1996?” The 1996 plan is pretty much currently in effect unchanged. It needs to be re-approved (in what is called a “technical update” – which is really a non-update) every 5 years for the city to eligible for state Bicycle Transportation Account (BTA) funding. The ~2002 and ~2007 updates merely affirmed the 1996 plan.

“Or is it possible that all projects ever approved on any bike plan are fair game?” Projects NOT on a bike plan are fair game, too. See my statements here: http://bit.ly/42MFnG It can be easier to implement projects already approved in the plan… but where there’s political consensus, projects can certainly move forward without being in the plan.

“It seems we need to be compiling lists of projects with the most potential and then pounding out the political and grassroots support for them and getting them completed; does that sound right to you?” Yes – I think so. We should compare what we see on the approved plan with where we ride and then put pressure on the city to implement the facilities that we think are worthwhile. Wherever possible, we will be more effective where we work in coalition with other bicyclists and other neighborhood groups.

Is there any documentation of the steps everyone went through to get the Silver Lake-Sunset Bike Lane put in? And why isn’t anyone organizing to target the very individual bike projects you mention on York and Figueroa? Also, you refer to the 1996 plan, but what about the plan after that, the 2001 plan, does that supersede 1996? Or is it possible that all projects ever approved on any bike plan are fair game?

It seems we need to be compiling lists of projects with the most potential and then pounding out the political and grassroots support for them and getting them completed; does that sound right to you? Maybe your new Liveable LA will be doing that–need any help? Put me on it!

Anyway, I hope you’ll come out this weekend to the Bike Working group event at LACC. I think your opinion is absolutely critical to a well rounded understanding of the situation.

@Ramon – hmmmm… a whole lot of good questions in short comment! I am not a lawyer, but I’ve seen a few Environmental Impact Reports (EIRs) in my day… so I will hazard a long-winded response to each of your questions (if there are lawyers out there, please correct me where I am in error):

Yes – an EIR done by someone who doesn’t want bikes on L.A. streets could screw bike. Yes – using Level of Service (LOS) to measure impacts to car traffic is one way this harm could be done.

The good news is that EIR law, as I understand it, doesn’t mandate that you (or the city) would need to actually do the best thing for the environment… it states that you need to have been thorough in understanding the impacts of all your alternatives. So, theoretically, if the EIR showed that a road diet was going to help bikes but harm cars (hence to-an-extent screwing up the environment,) the deciding body (in L.A.: the city council with the concurrence of the mayor) could still make a finding saying we really analyzed all this well, and we understand the impacts, and we’re still going with the road diet. So, it can boil down to political will.

“Is this what you mean by not getting anything more than the plan we already have?” No. What I meant by this in comment#5 is that if we kill the current 2009 Bike Plan update, then get another new Bike Plan update process funded in 2011… there’s no guarantee that we’ll get a new 2011 plan that’s any better than the 2009 plan before us. Just doing it over again doesn’t mean it will be any better.

“in terms of road diets, how can we take away car lanes and reduce speeds without an EIR?” There are a few ways to do this:
1. Do a road diet on a street that’s already been approved in the current 1996 plan. A portion of the Silver Lake Blvd bike lanes did this, reducing four car lanes to three. A similar approach is possible on streets like York Boulevard and Fletcher Drive – both designated for bike lanes in the 1996 plan.
2. Do a road diet on a low-traffic-volume street where it’s more-or-less obvious that there won’t be any serious impact nor any complaints. An example of this would be the recent bike lanes on Myra Avenue – see http://bit.ly/4u7cvZ. They weren’t in any plan. This can’t really work for big projects, but if the city is very confident that nobody will sue them, then they can get away without an EIR.
3. Along the lines of that last sentence… if there’s an overwhelming public consensus from all parties for a road diet project, then the city might just do it without an EIR.

“especially if we’re not giving people any alternatives” What? You don’t see the bike as an alternative?!?! (Though your point is probably right – in a today-conventional EIR process, removing a car lane and adding an alternative – a bike lane – would likely be analyzed as a loss of travel capacity – a negative impact.)

“why not make one big push to get a document that proves once and for all, cycle facilities can legitimately challenge LOS, making our individual battles of the future all the more advanced?” No reason not to. There’s a really good case for this (see various writings by ubrayj/Josef including the hyperlink in the second to last paragraph of the above article) and I am certainly not opposed to it. My personal guess is that challenging Length of Service (LOS) is a big, difficult, somewhat-esoteric policy campaign and bicyclists are still a relatively small share of the commuting and voting public, so it may be difficult to win today… and, after we win the LOS policy fight, we’d still probably have to campaign for individual facilities. So… my hunch/opinion is that it’s likely to be more fruitful for cyclists to campaign for facilities, to win a number of these, gather momentum, hopefully to get more people biking hence building a larger constituency… then, when we have some facilities victories under our belt, and when the LADOT sees that we’re not going away… then we take on the bigger systemic biases. But it’s not exclusive – I am working with folks to get more bike lanes on Reseda Blvd, and I would like to lend some of my energy to a campaign (led by you? or Josef?) to reform Level of Service. We can and should do both.

in terms of road diets, how can we take away car lanes and reduce speeds without an eir? especially if we’re not giving people any alternatives (save increased transit services, but I don’t even know if that makes sense/would be possible in road diet figurings)?

it just seems like if we’re constantly rallying people for this on going battle to push through any single project that benefits bicyclists, we’re wasting steam. why not make one big push to get a document that proves once and for all, cycle facilities can legitimately challenge LOS, making our individual battles of the future all the more advanced?

Unfortunately, I don’t have the time to count committee and council votes and walk the halls talking to staff people on a draft motion to pull this money together into an EIR for the Bike Plan. That is, however, what needs to be done.

While that legislative effort is going on, we also need organizing (rides, parties, letter writing, fundraisers) to support the cycling agenda.

This isn’t rocket science, and we’re not asking for anything that controversial. The precedent in other cities has already been set (NY, San Francisco, Boston, Chicago, Madison, Boulder, London, Paris).

I sometimes think that the cycling movement’s greatest weakness is its naive and fearful attitude towards local politics.

Or maybe you were hoping that the politicians would lead the people into a more rational and sustainable transportation system? That can’t be what you were thinking. That’s ridiculous. :)

So, now that these dedicated bicycle funds have been identified, the work of lobbying to pull enough capital to pay for a full EIR for the Bike Plan lies before us. Ready, set, go!

To get those standards, we need a Bike Plan to add them to the General Plan.

To get a Bike Plan with those standards we need an EIR.

Money for an EIR can come from a variety of sources:

- State Public Utilities Code (sec. 99231 & 99233) sends about $4.5 million to the City annually for “a balanced transportation program for bicycle and pedestrian facilities”. This money currently goes into the black box known as the “Capital Improvement Expenditure Program”;

- Local Returns money from Measure R and Proposition C “ANTI-GRIDLOCK TRANSIT IMPROVEMENT FUND”. This money can be used on streets used by transit, and its use is open to a broad interpretation of the law that authorizes its allocation. Unallocated amount annually is in the range of

- Mobile Source Air Pollution Reduction Trust Fund, a $4per vehicle fee imposed on vehicles in the South Coast Air Quality Management District. Forty percent of revenues are allocated to cities based on population. Funds are to be used for programs to
reduce air pollution from motor vehicles. Average annual revenue: ~$5.0 million. Funds used to pay for gaps in funding in various departments and to buy “Clean Air” fleet vehicles for the City. $424,000 pays for the city of LA’s van pool program – important, but nonetheless trivial in light of the impact a forceful Bike Plan could have.

Plus a few more, depending on how creative we want to get!

The EIR process will build a political will where none exists now. I’m curious about the findings that the EIR in San Francisco’s Bike Plan made to allow car capacity and Level of Service to be degraded in favor of bicycle facilities and access. A little copy and paste will follow (hopefully) but that document is huge, and I haven’t had the time to read it all.

Yes, there’s significant money that the city spends on things that I wouldn’t prioritize… but… I think, in a year when the city is laying off and furloughing staff, it’s not going to be trivially easy to get a couple million dollars for environmental review of a bike plan.

Implicit in your scenario is that there’s political will to do a really great bike plan that actually prioritizes bikes – and plans to take significant space away from cars and reallocate it to bikes… I think that’s completely needed, but it’s going to be difficult – and it’s going to find resistance in city departments – including planning – and among many L.A. drivers. I think we can (and need to) do this over time… but it may take a while.

Timewise – here’s my guestimate at a best case scenario for the trajectory that I think you’re asserting:
Stopping the current plan – complete early 2010
Funding a new plan – complete early 2011
Completing the new plan – complete early 2012
Finishing the EIR – complete late 2012
That’s a best-case scenario… and there’s no guarantee that we get anything more than what we have in the plan now. Also, if bicyclists kill the current plan (which I assert, in its current state, we should – though, at this point, I am still pushing to get it modified into an acceptable state), then it’s may be tougher to get funding for a new one. Folks can say LA blew $ money on the last one and nothing came out of it, why should we throw good money after bad…

I think it’s more fruitful to bang on the current plan to get it into something that’s at least a small step forward. During and after that, bike activists need to push politically, inside and outside of the bike plan. We should be pushing for things like road diets, etc., in places where we don’t necessarily see them in the plan. We don’t need to limit ourselves to what’s in the plan… we can get things not in the plan, if we build the political will for those things.

(it probably won’t, though)

The city collects a nice chunk of money from AQMD fees (these get squandered on “clean air” vehicles for city employees and Dept. of Envir. Affairs staff); the city gets Prop. C and will soon receive Measure R funds – and can apply for TDM and Bikeways money in the Local Returns and Call For Projects the MTA runs.

It would take, what, $2 million to do a proper EIR city-wide? Another two years for us to get the right findings (i.e. “It is okay to take away car capacity in exchange for bicycle facilities”) and the right designations.

This isn’t that big of a deal legislatively, so why don’t we push for this?

When/if the plan makes it to council committee (or before), let’s get a councilman/woman to propose moving dedicated money towards the Planning Dept. (not the DOT) to do this plan right.

While we’re at it, why don’t we focus on moving the Bicycle Coordinator position to a high-level Planning or Mayoral office position? Why is the Citywide bike coordinator placed in a subordinate position to the “Car Department” bureaucracy? This is a ludicrous state of affairs.