More Details on the Proposed “South Beach Bicycle Path” Extension

Last week, we reported on an effort to add a proposed extension to the South Bay Bike Path through Venice Beach and away from Washington Boulevard.  There was some confusion as to how that extension would work, and yesterday Jim Kennedy provided images that better explain the path.

We’re just hours away from the Joint Meeting of the City Council’s Transportation Committee and Planning and Land Use Committee, which might be the last time to get this proposal in to the Bike Plan until the next Draft which could be decades from now.  Here is Kennedy’s design.

As you can see, the plan doesn’t involve running over a bridge to get past the canals, but rather an actual extension of the beach path down all the way to the canals before cutting east.  This route goes through City and County sand, so it needs to be in both the city and county bike plans to have a chance to get funded.  If you feel this plan should be in the City Bike Plan, you’re running out of time to get it included.  Kennedy provides a draft letter and some email addresses to help made your voice heard, which can be found after the jump.

Please act now to support this sensible addition to the LA Bicycle Master Plan to finish our amazing Venice Beach bike path.  Email this letter of support (below) to Councilmembers Rosendahl and Reyes and their staff

councilmember.rosendahl@lacity.org

mike.bonin@lacity.org

paul.backstrom@lacity.org

councilmember.reyes@lacity.org

jose.gardea@lacity.org

rebecca.valdez@lacity.org

Please feel free to add your personal experiences with where you live and bike.

Here is more background story from last week’s Argonaut:  Venice Neighborhood Council supports inclusion of beach bicycle path extension in city bike master plan

*Please forward this request to your bicycle riding friends and ask them to email today this support letter to finish the Venice Beach bike path in the LA Bicycle Master Plan. *

Thank-you!

Jim Kennedy

Dear Councilmembers Rosendahl and Reyes:

I am a local resident who supports including the last section of the Venice Beach bike path being put back into the Los Angeles Bicycle Master Plan at the joint PLUM and Transportation Committee meeting on February 9th. The proposal is to continue the Venice Beach bike path from Washington Boulevard to Via Marina.

Finishing the Marvin Braude Bike Path is critical to completing  the over 20 mile bike path that serves hundreds of thousands every year, giving Los Angelinos and visitors from around the world the opportunity to enjoy the coast by bike.  Why anyone would oppose providing beach access to cyclists is beyond me.  Including the bike path extension in the LA Bicycle Master Plan does not mean it will be designed and constructed without discussion.  Instead, the very positive reason for the LA Bicycle Master Plan is to remove planning impediments and allow project discussions to continue.

I personally hope, and am willing to see to it that the Venice Beach bike path extension is thoroughly discussed and vetted before any implementation.  However, we should allow the discussion to take place, and therefore the project ought to be included in the LA Bicycle Master Plan.

Sincerely,

“YOUR NAME”
Bicycle Rider/Local Resident

  • I don’t think I can make it, but if someone can mention LAMC 80.27 (the anti-cargo bike law) and ask for its repeal as part of the bike plan that would be awesome.

    http://www.flickr.com/photos/ubrayj02/4274630286/

  • LAMC

    Could you explain how this prohibits cargo bikes?

    SEC. 80.27. RIDING ON BICYCLES.

    A person operating a bicycle shall not ride other than upon the permanent and regular seat attached thereto, nor carry any other person upon such bicycle other than upon a firmly attached seat to the rear of the operator, nor shall any person ride upon a bicycle other than as above authorized. (Amended by Ord. No. 122,716, Eff. 10/5/62.)

  • LAMC:

    I don’t regularly ride or sell cargo bikes, but I can easily spot some problems here–that appear both very unnecessary and outdated. We should be encouraging the safe use of these multi-person, multi-purpose bikes rather than subjecting them to potentially problematic regulations, right? At least that’s my view.

    1. “A person operating a bicycle shall not ride other than upon the permanent and regular seat attached thereto…”

    The cargo bucket may not have what some would call a “regular” seat–whatever that may be. That ambiguity right there is problematic. While some cargo buckets are outfitted with obvious seating areas (some even with safety restraints for those seating areas), some only have very simple step-like “seats” for riders. I wouldn’t want to leave it up to individual officers on the streets and put them in the position of making potential arbitrary and/or inconsistent decisions based on preconceived notions of what a bicycle seat should or shouldn’t be. That creates an uncertainty that is bad for everyone.

    2. “…nor carry any other person upon such bicycle other than upon a firmly attached seat to the rear of the operator …”

    What’s the rationale that passengers must be to the rear of the operator? This makes no sense, but to answer your question, most cargo bikes have the bucket forward of the operator. Look up pictures of “bakfiets” or “Nicolas” online. As such, these folks are in violation.

    Not only does this phrase cause operators/passengers of cargo bikes to be in violation, but also well-intentioned parents (like me in days of yesteryear) with my set-up when I rode with my young kids. We didn’t like the rear-mounted child seat option (it gave the child a subordinate position, a bad view (of my/my wife’s rear end), and prevented any interaction). We opted for the front-mount child seat–my sons were right between my arms, we could easily talk, and they got a much better sense of what it’s like to actually ride a bike being right there up front. Perhaps that’s why their such good riders today. Ours looked something like this: http://www.thisnext.com/topic-bicycle-front-mounted-child-carrier. Little did I know that back then that I was a criminal.

    I’m sure that the regular riders and purveyors of these cargo bikes can give you some real-world problems they’ve also encountered if you’re interested.

ALSO ON STREETSBLOG

Culver City Walks, Not Runs, Towards Transportation Sustainability

|
Following the decline of the studios in the 1960’s and 1970’s, Culver City had to reinvent itself.  In the 1990’s, the city once commonly referred to as “The Heart of Screenland” undertook an aggressive campaign to revitalize their Downtown area that was mostly successful in attracting businesses and tourists to bolster the city’s economy.  Today, nearly […]

Review: The Expo Phase II Bike Path Is Going to Be Great…

|
…if they ever finish it. Advocates for a bicycle path to run parallel to the recently-opened Phase II of the Expo Light Rail Line have long contended that the Exposition Construction Authority viewed the fully-funded separated bike path as an afterthought. Maybe they were right. The bike path, which officially opened with the rail line […]