If L.A. Is Going to Invest in Bike Lanes, Then Do It Right!

1_11_10_sunset.jpg

Bike Lanes are a deterrent for me to ride in and I oftentimes cringe when I hear people blindly supporting them without asking for enhanced safety standards and regulations.

So when the LA Draft Bike Plan proposes Bike Lanes and Paths all over the city without taking into consideration what the people want, it upsets me for many reasons, not withstanding the fact that all of our bike lanes in Los Angeles place the cyclists into the door zone with the exception of the short stretch on McClintock Ave by USC. That is the only bike lane in the city that I know of that has the bike lane outside of the door zone.

Anyhow, here are my reasons why I don’t like bike lanes in Los Angeles:

1. Bike lanes in Los Angeles are placed in the door zone

I have always wondered how the LADOT is calculating the curb side of the bike lanes because they are so close to the door that anybody riding in the center of the bike lane would be hit in the chest by any car door that opens suddenly. This puzzle all made sense to me when I looked at this Draft Bike Plan and section 5.5.4. made the Shared Lane Marking (SLM) all clear to me.

LADOT (or Alta Planning) calculates the Door Zone Width as "generally assumed to be 2.5 feet from the edge of the parking lane" and their recommended SLM placement is "minimum of 11 feet from edge of curb where on street parking is present…"

I guess the consultants, planners, designers and engineers who worked on this plan never heard of John Forester, the father of all vehicular cyclists and cycling activist, who writes:

"With typical car body-widths of 5.8′ to 6.1′, typical door widths of 3.2′, curb gap of 0.7′, and bicycle handlebar width of 2′, the minimum total lane width required to clear typical opened doors is 12′. For larger cars, it runs to 12.5′ or more. For commercial vehicles it is about 14′." (reference)

1 foot is a huge difference when calculating my chances of being hit by a door and I would err in favor of John Forester, after all, he knew what he was doing and LADOT according to LA’s bike infrastucture, doesn’t know what their doing. (The drawings and designs show so many discrepencies, that your head will hurt just after viewing a few pages)

2. Bike lanes give a false sense of security to cyclists because they don’t realize that they are in the door zone.

3. Bike lanes give a false sense of safety for drivers when they pass cyclists too fast, not leaving enough distance between the moving vehicle and a moving cyclist.

A recent study in Britain shows that drivers don’t leave nearly enough room for cyclists when they pass them in a bike lane, whereas they leave more room between them and cyclists when there is no bike lane.

4. Bike lanes in LA are on streets where the speed limit goes as high as 50 mph.

It would be cavalier of me to encourage my friends to ride on a street that is way to fast for their comfort, just because there are bike lanes. Bike lanes have never protected anybody from being hit, the cyclists have merely been moved out of the way of cars passing faster and faster through the many neighborhoods.

5. Bike lanes are used by many to double park (look at Chandler in North Hollywood), others for jogging (see Sunset in Silver Lake), or for collecting road debris (see Anaheim in Wilmington), or as an additional lane in traffic congestions (Santa Monica Blvd Transit Parkway).

6. Bike lanes are used for storing trash collecting bins on collection days.

There is a municipal code that says that people will be fined if they put their trash bins into the bike lane because that obstructs traffic (bike lanes are part of the traffic lane and require special road closure permit if it has to be closed or obstructed in any way that would interfere with traffic) but the City doesn’t enforce. Lack of political will!

In short, bike lanes are used for many things in Los Angeles, from joggers to shopping cart pushers, for parking and for storing stuff, by motor cyclists and suicide cyclists (cyclists riding against traffic) and occasionally it is used by cyclists who then get squeezed into the door zone by Metro bus drivers or righteous motorists or they get pushed out in front of fast moving vehicles by opening car doors and dropped trash cans.

Bike lanes would be very useful if their design, position and engineering would be safe for cyclists and motorists alike and if law enforcement would step up and protect the weaker and greener. :-)

There are already laws in place, we don’t need a bike plan for that. Enforcing the law is what we need not by 2020 but by tomorrow.

And lastly here is a great article from 2007 written by Stephen Box for your further reading enjoyment on LAs bike lanes.II

  • That bit about the wheelie bins blocking the bike lanes on trash day is too true! It is illegal, and incredibly dangerous, to place your trash can in the bike lan yet it seems as though our only recourse is a swift right side-kick. When the issue made it before the LA City Council’s Transportation Committee a while back, all the city staff just shrugged their shoulders and said, “It’s that guy’s fault!” pointing to LAPD, Public Works, LADOT finally settling on a request for the City Attorney to study the undertaking of a study to allow an agency to consider taking action against property owners that block bike lanes (maybe).

  • Roadblock

    There are actually a number of streets that do have decent width bike lanes. Most of the ones I’ve seen occur in the valley. Colfax between the LA river and Chandler has Really nice wide lanes probably the best in the city that I know of outside of Long Beach. In fact I’ve seen cars regularly mistake the colfax bike lane as a car lane when turning from riverside heading south on Colfax because it’s so wide. Devonshire between reseda and I believe de soto, plummer from winnerka to balboa. Stretches of sepulveda from Manchester to Howard hughs is not too bad because there is no parking. The recent installation of reseda from devonshire to San Fernando mission… Santa Monica features some areas along the blvd where the lane is fairly wide.

    The sunset bike lane is notorious for not being wide enough but I deal with it by riding on or just inside/outside the left line as I see fit. What bike lanes CAN do is educate drivers (that are paying attention) to watch out before they open their doors. I wonder which situation requires more education awareness: drivers being educated of cyclists right to the road and legal position on the road OR drivers education as to use caution before opening doors.

    One thing is absolutely clear, there is no city on earth that can afford car culture that has given up car culture or developed a respect for cycling culture without the implementation of cycling infrastructure as part of the traffic grid. So for now I’m willing to deal with “less than perfectly safe” cycling infrastructure in order to build a constituency which would then eventually reach a mass large enough to push for even better cycling infrastructure. New York SF went through this “somewhat unsafe” infrastructure period and are now tweaking and transitioning into safer cities for cycling. It will not happen without the constituency pushing for it or a politician willing to have vision and guts… Won’t hold my breath for that.

    If I was god I would slap sharrows in every #2 Or #3 lane in Los Angeles, put 3 questions in the DMV test regarding cyclist rights to the road, and implement an at fault law that states that the larger heavier vehicles involved in an accident must accept an equally proportional minimum liabilty. This kind of law exists I believe in the northern European “cycling utopia” nations.

  • Roadblock

    Oh yeah, seeing trash cans in the bike lane pisses me off insanely. There is a stretch along Venice from the 405 to centimela, silvelake blvd just north of sunset and along eagle rock blvd from Fletcher north that are particularly bad. If I have enough time and anger I go with the ubbrayj right kick… Perhaps it would be better to move them into the car lane and… Nah… Yeah?

  • I thought @Roadblock was god!!

    Responding to the article… I hope there’s a third Enci Box article coming saying what changes you would like to see in L.A…. today: the case against bike lanes, recently: the case against bike paths… Please let us know if there are bike facilities that you do favor. I suspect that folks at the LADOT who don’t want to prioritize bikes would be happy to stop working on paths and lanes… Please let them know what you’d like to see! If we oppose all imperfect solutions, we’re likely to get inaction.

    I am glad to see a more nuanced title this time – not “the case against…” but “if lanes then done right.” There are certainly occasional issues with bike lanes.

    I actually think that the very few streets where LA actually has done bike lanes are pretty good places to ride. Sunset, Silver Lake, Eagle Rock, Reseda… they work well for me… they’re all better than they used to be before the lanes were added. Yes – nearly all of them are partially in the door zone… that’s why we do at least a 5-foot bike lane when it’s next to on-street parking. The ~3-foot door zone in the 5-foot lane leaves ~2-feet outside the door zone. ~2 feet is better than no feet.

    I don’t like trash cans or double-parking in bike lanes, but I think that these are still the exception. From my personal, albeit anecdotal, experience, these sorts of irritating obstructions are present less than 5% of the time. Let’s not throw the baby out with the bathwater.

    Your focus seems to me to be “what’s wrong/imperfect with bike lanes?” For me, it’s more helpful to compare “what’s better: a bike lane or no bike lane?” When I ride on a street with a 50-mph speed limit, would I rather ride in a bike lane? or split a travel lane with 50+mph traffic? Is that facility going to be fun/safe/inviting for all cyclists? no… but it’s better than a street with no indications to drivers that bikes belong.

    I am not aware of any perfect bike facilities… but I think that infrastructure of various kinds, forming a relatively robust network, can encourage bicycling and create safer and more inviting places to ride.

    I would point folks to a couple of sources showing that bike lanes do foster more bicycling:
    1. Portland’s Dr. Jennifer Dill – her studies show that various types of facilities (lanes, paths – also quiet streets, bridge access, etc.) do result in more trips. See http://uepi.wordpress.com/2009/02/24/portland-bike-study-sheds-light-on-bike-facilities/
    2. New York City adds 200 miles of bikeway (mostly lanes – some in the door zone, some not) and sees 66% increase in bike commuting.
    http://www.streetsblog.org/2009/11/10/streetfilms-nyc-biking-up-big-for-two-years-running/

  • Those of us that actually ride the streets know how to use the imperfect bike lanes, but this is due to hard-won experience. People who are new to functional cycling tend to ride down the middle of the lanes, in the door zone, because that is the way traffic lanes are designed to be used (I see this happening all the time). I’m not arguing that bike facilities need to be perfect, but if we are going to expect and encourage more inexperienced people to cycle in bike lanes, they should not be designed so that a safe road position is counter-intuitive. In many cases, I think that sharrows could be more effective, since they direct cyclists to ride in a correct road position.

    If I were to suggest a third article in this series—an article about positive changes—it would be about re-engineering city streets to calm traffic and establish cohesive neighborhoods. This would benefit cyclists profoundly, of course, but also improve safety and quality of life for everyone—the “Holy Grail” of infrastructure.

  • How can we get the city to ticket people who place their trash bins in the bike lane? That is a huge problem on Silver Lake Blvd. I’m sure they place the bins in the bike lane because all those trash bins seriously cut down the number of parking spaces. We need to find a way to allow them to preserve their parking AND keep the bike lane free. That way all parties are happy and we can work together. It doesn’t have to be bikes vs parking.

  • @revebleu:

    What you’re calling for simply isn’t possible.

    Your comment speaks to the big, overarching issue that needs to be addressed in the long term: it IS bikes vs. parking, because there’s a hard limit of how much road space is available. One of the primary reasons to invest in cycling, public transportation and pedestrianism is that our limited spaces and resources can be used more efficiently to accommodate many more people for far less money, and minimize the negative impact on our environment and quality of life.

    The choice has to be made to take some public space away from automobiles and dedicate it to other purposes. It’s not a popular or easy position to take at this point in time, but it is the only way we can hope to have a livable city in the future.

  • @Angle

    I couldn’t disagree more. We have to build relationships, not become adversaries. It’s easier to work with people to find a solution than to create enemies.

  • e.n

    @Roadblock, why not have the LADOT slap sharrows on every street that they claim is “infeasible” to install a bike lane? I already prefer to ride in the center of traffic lanes than use the unsafe bike lanes in my neighborhood.

    living on the westside, i rely on the venice blvd bike lane, which looks more like a BMX course than a bike lane.

    this was my recommendation for the bike plan:
    sharrows on every “bike route.”

    …including the absurd “pico blvd bike route” through rancho park, where i was forced from the #3 to the #2 lane by an angry parking enforcement officer who wanted me out of the street.

    if the city is going to call pico a bike route, and probably get state and federal funding for improvements, how about we make those improvements visible? or else put the money towards something that actually saves lives, rather than placing one dark green bike route sign every block that is regularly ignored? or do what west hollywood did, and put up VISIBLE signs every few FEET that say “yield to pedestrians and cyclists?” no slippery paint needed!

    either that, or call a spade a spade and take those fucking bike route signs down. that way, cyclists will have no illusions that they have a right to those streets.

    because in much of LA, we simply don’t.

  • I wonder how many inexperienced cyclists actually get out there and follow bike route signs. I was already an experienced cyclist by the time I got to LA, so I knew to pay more attention to road conditions than bike route signage, but I did end up on a “bike route” through the Port of LA one time. It does seem like it’d be a bad idea to go out there with nothing other than a bike map and a resolution to try cycling. Do people do this? Seems like a lot of people here get started with friends’ help.

  • e.n

    @adonia,

    i started riding my bike in la after 6 years of driving. it was not easy.

    i learned to ride safely from reading LADOT’s “Guide to Bicycling in Los Angeles,” and from “bicycling street smarts” and “bike taking the lane” from midnightridazz.com. it was a good thing i did my homework, because i soon discovered that i was responsible for educating my local police and drivers of my rights as well.

    not long after being attacked by the parking enforcement officer, i received two citations in error (and later had the fines dismissed) for using a left turn lane to make a left and for riding two abreast in a narrow lane in culver city. (it’s explicitly legal to ride two-abreast in culver city. CCMC 7.04.215)

    i once even got warned by a cop that i was supposed to ride AGAINST traffic, like a jogger.

  • The only good wheelie bin is a tipped wheelie bin!

  • Really it’s gives a false sense of security to cyclists, their is a more immediate need of state federal funding to improve road conditions, signs, as well making them wider so that cyclists can ride with maximum of security possible in which way we can encourage environment friendly transportation.

  • Brent

    No part of the two-mile bike lane along Santa Monica Boulevard, stretching from the 405 to Century City, is in a door zone. There is simply no parking to the right of the lane.

  • mandor

    The Sunset bike lane is especially bad during business hours–so many delivery trucks to dodge! It’s not as much of a problem at night, but I can’t think of the last trip I made during the day along that stretch of Sunset btw Silver Lake and Echo Park where I didn’t get forced out into the car lane at least once.

    I’d also add the bike lane on Griffith Park to the list of streets with rampant wheelie bin offenses, but traffic on that street is such that dodging the bins doesn’t stress me out.

    My fondest bike lane memory is when I was riding past traffic on Ohio near the VA and some aggro dude in a black mercedes nearly clipped me with his mirror because he felt the need to pass traffic via the bike lane. I still regret being so shocked that I couldn’t memorize the license plate.

  • wow

    While I agree that we all should hold LA accountable for adhering to design standards and best practices I think the author is rather off base in his reference. Quoting Forrester on livable streets is like referencing Hitler while discussing tolerance issues. The man is an anti-dedicated bike facility, pro-car use zealot. Need proof? He’s a part of the same speaking bureau as right wing nut job Randal O’Toole http://www.americandreamcoalition.org/forester.html

  • e.n

    it doesnt matter if someone is conservative, liberal, fascist or communist–better bike infrastructure and more bikes on the road are good for both society and fiscal policy.

    everyone wins but detroit. we need a broad coalition of different people to embrace this fact if we want to see legitimate bike infrastructure and legal protections in LA.

    democracy is about finding common ground with people of differing views. its something i believe we need to think about both for la’s transportation crisis as well as for society at large.

  • wow

    I’m ALL for building consensus across the political spectrum, but O’Toole and his ilk are the opposition to that. Forrester and his minions are biking community equivalent. They oppose spending money on dedicated facilities and even oppose anything that would limit driving.

    http://www.streetsblog.org/2009/06/02/randal-otoole-taking-liberties-with-the-facts/

    http://www.streetsblog.org/2009/07/07/transit-hater-randal-otoole-gets-no-love-at-senate-hearing/

  • E.N., you said this “either that, or call a spade a spade and take those fucking bike route signs down. that way, cyclists will have no illusions that they have a right to those streets.”

    There is no illusion; we absolutely have a right to all streets except freeways, regardless of bike route or bike lane signage.

  • true, bike lanes need to be designed better. that still should not preclude from advocating for them and other design treatments.

  • e.n

    @danceralamode

    they’re rights only on paper. if they were real rights, we wouldnt all have stories about being harrassed by police on our way to work, and having our friends being injured, crippled and killed.

    go ask a cop if you have a right to ride in the street and not in the gutter. he’ll tell you what your rights are in reality.

    until we have signs that say more than “share the road, guys!” and until police training consists of more than this sentence,

    “BIKE-SLOW MOVING Ride as near the right hand curb or edge of the roadway as
    practicable. EXCEPTIONS: May use left on one way street.”

    until a cyclist that gets hit and run can rest assured that the police will find the son of a bitch that left him for dead, we have no rights.

    we need to make these paper rights a reality. we need to demand real changes.

  • e.n.,

    Agreed, there needs to be a massive shake-up in the way LAPD enforces the CVC. Like, say, they actually need to learn it. Back when I got that ticket for being in a crosswalk with a pedestrian (I was in a car, pedestrian was on the other side of a very wide street–just saying I wasn’t trying to run peds down), the officer took almost 30 minutes to look up the vehicle code to cite on the ticket. I was sitting in my car thinking, is he taking a nap back there while I wait for him?

    So then I asked him if the code he was stating was a city ordinance or something (because of course as a motorist I was really unaware of most CVC), because I had never heard of it, and then he said, “Uh, no, I think it’s in all of LA County.” To this day, I’m reeling over that response. You’re citing me for violating the CA Vehicular Code, and you don’t even know it? Really?

    If that’s their response with motorists, can you imagine how they ad-lib it with cyclists? This is the law; there is no room for ad-libbing. If you don’t have a CVC to cite me for, then don’t harrass me.

  • jim

    The same thing is happening here in Minneapolis. Basically, paint is cheap but wider streets and new parking facilities are not.

    The pattern is – commission a study to find out what it takes to really do it right in terms of space, parking restrictions etc. – wave the study around – then allocate 60% of that space, call it a “compromise” and walk away.

    I’ve been ‘doored’ in a bike lane once and believe me that only needs to happen once for you to lose your enthusiasm for new paint stripes.

  • rf132

    The problem with bike lanes is that they create road space that cars do not generally use. This is bad because without motor traffic the roadway tends to collect debris, snow, trashcans and open doors because nobody respects bike traffic. Id rather have the threat of oncoming motor traffic to make people look behind before they open their door and think twice before leaving trash or double parking in the roadway. Bike lanes do not give cyclist more usable roadway, (you already have the right to be there). They also give the perception to drivers that the bike lane is the only part of the road you are allowed to bike in, in reality you should stay as far to the right as is safe (which in some cases is left of the bike lane). Bike lanes may encourage novice riders to start biking but I think they create more hazards than they prevent in some cases.
    I would recommend reading Robert Hurst (Art of cycling) for more info on safe cycling.

  • mr oldstyle

    As a daily bike rider, I disagree.

    Arguing against bike lanes is like arguing against sidewalks and crosswalks. Sidewalks put people close to the road and cars. Crosswalks encourage people to walk across travel lanes. Scary! Pedestrians should drive instead to avoid these dangers.

    Pedestrians face similar issues as cyclists, such as speed, rolling stops, failure to yield, obstructions in the walkway, etc. The response isn’t, nor should it be, let’s get ride of sidewalks and crosswalks. The approach is, how do we make them safer and more effective. The same approach should be used for bike facilities.

    Cyclists deserve dedicated space within a right-of-way. Not all bike lanes are perfect, there is no absolute safety, but bike lanes and other bike facilities make clear to other users that cyclists have a right to be on the road and a right to ‘own’ their space of the road. We deserve dedicated space on the road, and bike lanes are one option.

    I ride in bike lanes everyday. If there is an obstruction, I merge in to the adjacent travel lane after checking behind me and signaling. If a bike lane is narrow, I ride on the far edge of the lane or go slower so that I can safely stop if a door opens. I also ride in wide bike lanes and avoid streets with high travel speeds, even if they are a few blocks out of my way. These are all things drivers do and experience, and I do them as a cyclist to stay safe. All of this would be more difficult without bike lanes because other users would assume that I didn’t belong. Bicycles belong when there are bike lanes.

  • I read with some amusement the comment that mention the need for “space”, as if 10 foot or wider travel lanes aren’t space enough for a bicyclist. So long as we accept segregation (yes, mandatory separation via 21208, is de jure segregation – would you also accept bicyclist only drinking fountains, rest rooms, etc.?), is it any surprise that the “separate” facility is intrinsically unequal?

    Bike lanes are the dregs of the road, and ALWAYS put cyclists at a sight line and crossing conflcit disadvantage. What can you say about a facility that comes with a mandatory use law that has exceptions? That the faciltiy is so inherently risky that cyclists are alowed to leave it becasue of the hazards. If a bike lane were truly safe, a cyclist should be able to stay in it and never leave becasue of hazards. This simple fact seems to escape the bike lane segregation apologists, who I see as the cycling equivalent of “Uncle Toms”.

    Bravo to Enci for having the courage to point out that bike lanes are not for the benefit of cyclists. Instead bike lanes are a huge favor to motorists, by forcing cyclists to the crappy edge of the road that motorists avoid becasue of all the road edge and sight line hazards.

    Behavior is the 500 lb Gorilla sitting in the middle of this discusion. Cyclists are Drivers! This is the law, but many don’t want to act like drivers, and many motorists don’t want us to be drivers because it is inconvenient to have us “in the way”. Of course these same motorists don’t seem to have any problem when thousands of other motorists are “in the way”. This is crux of the problem. The asphalt is there, we have one of the best grid networks and climates in the world; it’s the people who need to chaige their attitude and their behavior.

    You can’t solve a cultural behavior problem with paint; edcuation and enforcement are sorely needed. In cities that have had historically high mode share, the traffic fearful and the motorists have conspired to legaly force cycists to the road edge or onto sidepaths. We don’t want to be “road kaffirs”; instead we prefer to be the drivers the law says we are. We don’t mind if the traffic averse create OPTIONAL facilities, since this will not be done at the expense of our travel lane use rights. Even the Germans, the originators of cyclist segregation, are experiencing a push (petition) to repeal the mandatory sidepath (cycletrack) law.

    Cyclists are Drivers! Anything that takes this way is bad for cycling.

  • roadblock

    Cyclists are not drivers. The bicycle was first ridden about 75 years before the first car was ever driven. There is no reason to equate something as simple, agile and nimble as a bicycle – ride-able by people of all ages – with something as complex and cumbersome as an automobile. The future is the Netherlands and Northern Europe. We need laws in the US that go above and beyond to protect vulnerable vehicles and assign liability based on size weight and speed. The more people that get on bikes, especially for short trips of less than 5 miles, the more our cities will be clean and friendly for everyone.

    Anyone who has been to Northern Europe including our own Mayor, instantly realizes the wisdom that their traffic engineers and law makers possessed decades ago… While cars have a place on our roads, that place should be shrunken to accommodate smarter commuting solutions. Bicycles are a huge part of the future of this country.

  • muhua33

    Bravo Dan! I ride every day commuting and training and I avoid the roads with bike lanes. They limit the choices of movement I have and always but me in a dangerous space of the road. Not to mention that drivers now think that I am not part of their traffic flow, which I am.

    I think Roadblock you are getting caught up on a word. I think DG should have used the word vehicle. I am from North Carolina and currently live in Taipei. In NC I always understood that bikes were treated as vehicles, and as such have the same rights and responsibilities. Of course we are slower moving traffic so we are not allowed on some roads, but going through the city I am usually moving as fast as the flow of traffic.

    This may be a snobby thing to say, and I admit I am sort of a bike snob, but maybe people who don’t know how to ride a bike or ride in traffic should not be riding in traffic. You don’t get to drive a car without first taking some sort of class. I am not advocating bike licenses or anything but basic skills should be expected.

  • e/n

    @muhua33

    i dont think its necessary to legislate who can ride bikes where. if we had good off-road bikeways that allowed inexperienced riders to go from one part of town to another, they would avoid riding in the street because it’s scary. faster riders who can keep up with traffic would still ride in the street because its safer than riding with inexperienced cyclists.

  • in my thought bike lanes is not necessary. having these arise inexperience riders to come on to roads.

  • usage of bike lanes can reduce at least a little bit of bike accidents

  • Really, bike lanes need to be designed better. that still should not preclude from advocating for them and other design treatments.

  • Yes it is better to ask for the safe roads before proceeding to riding. All the lanes have to be designed such a way not to effect any bike rider and to improve the confidence in bike riders.

  • This is really a good thought to redesign the bike loans, specially for the bike lovers & racers.  We can also reduce at least a little bit of bike accident if we design the better bike lanes.

  • Good thought of developing the bike lanes, so all the bike racers will now be happy. There is a better chance of reducing the accidents too.

  • Good thought of developing the bike lanes, so all the bike racers will
    now be happy. There is a better chance of reducing the accidents too. 

  • Good news for bikers and proceed further with the redesign of the all the bike lanes.

  •  Its a great news for all the bike lovers & riders. All the lanes should be redesigned to for the better improvement. We can also reduce the accidents if we redesign the lanes perfectly.

  •  Yes they have to take the reviews and suggestions before proceeding to invest in bike lanes.

  • Yes they have to take the reviews and suggestions before proceeding to invest in bike lanes. show more show less

  • Yes they have to consider the views of the LA city people, then they have to move to invest in bike lanes. It is always important to conduct the surveys be fore taking any decisions, so that the lane can be designed with a proper safety.

  • walkmore

    Yes, yes, yes!! w

  • Yes, its better to do that, all riders will feel happy. Go ahead and do that!

  • King Richard of Niggardly

    “I’m tired of these self-righteous
    environmentalists, these white, bourgeois liberals who think the only
    thing wrong with this country is that there aren’t enough bicycle paths.” – George Carlin

ALSO ON STREETSBLOG

Cyclists Scoop LADOT on New Hoover Street Bike Lanes

|
New Hoover Street, two automo lanes and two bike lanes. Photo: Joe Linton/Eco Village Over the weekend, the L.A. Eco-Village blog wrote about new bike lanes appearing over a 1.6 mile stretch of Hoover Street in South L.A. between 98th and 120th street.  A day later, the LADOT’s Bike Blog picked up its own story […]

LADOT Striping Some, Not All, of Bike Lanes on Repaved Venice Blvd

|
The preliminary striping is down on the resurfaced mid-city stretch of Venice Boulevard that SBLA highlighted last week. The site is east of the existing Venice Blvd bike lanes, in the Los Angeles City neighborhoods of Harvard Heights, Arlington Heights, and Mid-City.  The good news is that the L.A. City Transportation Department (LADOT) is extending bike lanes one […]

LADOT’s FY11-12: A Banner Year for Bikeways

|
Back in a January 2012 L.A. Streetsblog article, Joe Linton stated that LADOT was “not quite on track” to complete Mayor Villaraigosa’s pledge for 40 new miles of bikeway each year. In that article, Linton projected only 31 new miles to be completed during Fiscal Year 2011-2012. The fiscal year ended two weeks ago, and LADOT […]