Updating the Bike Plan: Well, How Did I Get Here?

7_22_10_bpg.gif
The city of Los Angeles is updating its Bicycle Plan. The city staff report (p.20) states that this plan will “springboard the city of Los Angeles into the forefront of bicycle planning and establish the steps needed to ensure that Los Angeles become a world-class city for bicycling.” That’s an actual quote. Really. Perhaps it’s some sort of cut and paste error.  The same staff report also touts “Cicolvias.” [sic]

An internet search didn’t find any other accounts of the proposed bike plan update turning Los Angeles into a world-class bike city. Critiques of the plan have been considerably less effusive than the staff report, calling it “an entertaining and inspiring experience that bears no connection to reality” (Bikeside) and “a bunch of phoney bloney jargon to hide the fact that there are no real plans [for bike lanes on major streets]” (Brayj Against the Machine.) Even supportive articles include qualifications “… a step in the right direction … we are requesting that Planning and DOT … show further commitment” (LACBC) and “I like a lot of what I see in the draft plan, though.” (Biking in LA)

This article takes a look at the trajectory of the plan – how it got to where it is and where it might go from here.
The city bike plan covers many aspects of how the city does or doesn’t interact with bicycling: bike parking, bike maps, Bike to Work Week, technical standards, etc.

Though the bike plan generally guides the city’s bike programs, many city bike programs are not in the plan. When the mayor’s collision instilled in him a support for bicycle helmet use, he didn’t turn to the Planning Department and say “we need to update the bike plan to support helmet use.” No, he merely advocated for policies, programs and legislation outside the plan. Similar recent out-of-plan policies and programs have included city support of CicLAvia, LAPD escorting of Critical Mass, and “Give Me 3” awareness campaigns. Those are all ongoing city bike programs. None of them are in the current city bike plan approved in 1996.

Hence, while it’s good to have good policies in the plan, those policies tend to be limited more by political will than they are by the bike plan.

Other items in the plan are limited by funding. The plan may call for ambitious education programs and lengthy bike paths, but the implementation of those programs/facilities tend to not be limited by the plan specifics, but instead are limited by the city’s success in obtaining outside grant funding. Whether the plan contains 500 or 5000 miles of new bike path (the new draft has about 100 miles), generally the city can only implement 5-10 miles per year due to limited bike path funds available, mainly from the Metro Call for Projects.

Hence, while it’s good to have good paths and programs in the plan, those tend to be limited more by funding than they are by the bike plan.

On-street facilities are limited by the bike plan. (They’re what this author focuses inordinately on, too.)  Generally those on-street facilities are bike lanes. Bike lanes are very cheap; the extent to which bike lanes are implemented depends heavily on what streets are designated for bike lanes in the bike plan.

Here’s a quick score sheet on how the city’s commitment to bike lanes has waxed and waned through recent plan processes. (Follow the links for more details.)

The city has an existing bike plan: the 1996 Bicycle Master Plan. It’s currently in effect. The ’96 plan designated ~227 miles of new bike lane. Of those, the city implemented about 37 miles of planned bike lanes (and about 30 miles of unplanned bike lanes.) None of these planned or unplanned facilities necessitated any documented environmental review. Future approved bike lanes miles remaining in the 1996 plan: 190 miles.

About 5 years ago, the city decided to update the bike plan. In deciding what sort of bike plan was needed, the city formulated a bike plan scope designed to more-or-less dismantle the remaining approved but-as-yet-unbuilt bike lanes and to approve other bike facilities on quieter out-of-the-way streets.

The city hired bike plan consultants Alta Planning and Design, who have a reputation as one of the best bike planning firms in the nation. In late 2008, Alta turns in a draft plan – never made public, despite FOIA requests, but its outline is clear from the remnants of its dismantlingFuture approved bike lane miles in the 2008 Alta draft plan: 125 miles.

In 2009, the city spends about half a year dismantling their consultants’ recommendations, and then publishes their initial bike plan draft to near-universal dismay. The plan introduces a new category of “speculative” bike lanes (about 400 miles) – initially labelled “infeasible” later called “potential” later called “further study.” Future approved bike lane miles in the 2009 city draft bike plan: 28 miles.

In 2010, the city, having exhausted its consultant budget, decides to retool the draft plan in-house. The “speculative” bike lane category balloons to 500+miles. Future approved bike lane miles in the 2010 city draft bike plan: ~60 miles.

There’s a lot more to the 400+ pages in the current draft plan… some of it worthwhile, some of it questionable, some of it despicable… but a commitment to safe streets remains elusive. Many provisions in the draft plan make it more difficult for the city to implement bike lanes.

For the new bike plan to take effect, it must first be approved by the City Planning Commission. If they approve, it then goes before the City Council’s Planning and Transportation Committees, then to the full City Council, then to the Mayor. It’s scheduled to be heard at the City Planning Commission meeting tomorrow – Thursday November 4th 2010 at 8:30am in City Council Chambers – on the 3rd floor of City Hall, at 200 North Spring Street in downtown Los Angeles 90012. Public entrance and bike parking is on Main Street; easy transit access via numerous buses and the Metro Red Line Civic Center station.

Bicycle advocacy groups are encouraging folks to attend tomorrow’s meeting, and to testify – whether in favor of or against the plan. Once approved by the Planning Commission, the plan becomes more difficult to modify as it moves through approval processes, so tomorrow’s meeting is expected to be critical for pushing for possible improvements to the plan.

8 thoughts on Updating the Bike Plan: Well, How Did I Get Here?

  1. The reality is clear. we can have the BEST BIKE PLAN EVER CRAFTED IN THE HISTORY OF HUMANKIND. But NOTHING will be accomplished without the political will. As it is, LA drivers are the overwhelming majority and are not ready to give up their “space.” If the bicycle advocates are ever going to effect change, they have to work as a cohesive group. Stephen Box once told me that LA’s cycling advocates are second only to the renter’s advocates in infighting and disorganization… just where the car and oil lobby likes us to be.

  2. The picture on the cover photo above tells an interesting story. An insecure organization might lead with the number of miles of bikeway facilities in the plan, not recognizing that every street is where bicyclists ride, so this gives a clue about the City’s lack of vision and scope for the plan. The only acceptable number is the total mileage of the road network in LA City!

    More amusingly, the bicyclist from the 1970s, complete with buggy whip, er, I mean toe clips and straps, one of which isn’t even engaged, looks like he just finished a bicentennial ride, right out of 1976, and the plan seems to stuck in the 1970s, when bike plans were almost exclusively about bikeways, rather than the entire street network. I wonder if the cover was a kind of visual “Freudian slip” showing where they are really coming from, as opposed to where they ought to be going…

  3. Funny you felt that way about that picture, Dan, I felt the same way.

    Then I started thinking of bad jokes like, “The cover art is Michelle Mowery on a weekend ride” and other off color remarks.

  4. Thanks Herbie! I really like your line: “People and development don’t create the need for road widening. Departments of Transportation do.”

    It was actually really good to spar with you a bit on the bike plan this time around – it helped me hone in on some of the issues… tighten my critique – though I didn’t get into all the detail above, I think that the worst poison pill (among a half-dozen strong candidates) in the draft bike plan is that line: “bicycle lanes currently identified as potential will require additional analysis (particularly impacts on traffic) pursuant to CEQA” – it the city’s low bar for triggering an EIR (lower than the city currently practices on streets like Myra, Wilbur, San Pedro St.) that, if approved, will drive costs way up, and delay and kill many projects that should be cheap, quick, easy.

    I tried to the keep the article above more readily digestible, though… the CEQA (California Environmental Quality Act) EIR (Environmental Impact Report) stuff gets very esoteric very quickly.

  5. Nice work Joe. And thanks to both you and Dr. Alex for parsing out the math errors.

    The cover photo is telling. As they say about military planing, “the army is always ready to fight the last war,” and in this case that army, LADOT, is stuck in the 1970s. “Oh my god, people want to use their bikes to exercise on the weekends, we better build some expensive bike paths to get them off our streets.” The LA we need to plan is one where people can ride their bikes safely to a train station, to work, to a market. We need “streets” with healthy business districts not “corridors” run as de facto freeways. We also need transparency in the planning process. We get none of these things with the new bike plan.

  6. Today, the herd of cats known as LA’s cycling advocates, not only did not hiss and claw at each other, but we all worked pretty damn good together to review talking points and get all our issues understood by the planning commission. The LA DRAFT Bike plan has successfully withheld from approval pending changes to be addressed.

    It was also heartening that the planning commission expressed the will to be a “catalyst” for real change on the streets…

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

ALSO ON STREETSBLOG

SCAG Staff Release ATP Bike/Ped Project Funding Recommendations

|
The first year of the state’s new Active Transportation Funding (ATP) program is drawing to a close. ATP is the main source of funding for walking and bicycling projects and programs in L.A. County. In the past, L.A. County bike and ped projects were primarily funded by Metro’s Call for Projects. Changes at the federal level […]

StreetProfile : Alexis Lantz

|
This is our second in our new e-interview series.  The first was with Melissa Hebert of LAX Car Share.  If there’s an advocate or personality that you think we should interview, please drop me a line at damien@streetsblog.org Alexis Lantz was recently named the “Planning and Policy Director” of the Los Angeles County Bicycle Coalition […]

Federal Changes Causing Metro to Withdraw Previously Approved Funding for Bike and Ped Projects

|
At last week’s board meeting, Metro weighed the future of its commitment to funding active transportation: walking and bicycling. Changes in federal government funding are leading Metro to withdraw from its past bike and ped programs. Right now, 49 projects, totaling over $90 million, are on Metro’s list for “transition.” Metro had approved funding for these, […]

Light Appears at the End of a Long Bike Plan Tunnel

|
The city of Los Angeles’ update to its 1996 Bicycle Master Plan has been years in the making, and it looks like there’s finally some light appearing at the end of the bike tunnel. City work began in 2007, with an initial round of public meetings in early 2008. Shifting 2009 drafts drew near-universal derision from local […]