The Bike Writer's Collective huddles at last night's B.A.C Meeting. Photo: Stephen Box/Facebook

It may have been a few months late, but last night's review of the proposed new bike plan by the Bicycle Advisory Committee had enough fireworks for the fourth of July.

From BAC Chair Glenn Bailey to a small, but passionate group of audience members, a number of people expressed their anger about the plan - particularly about the short amount of time allowed for public review.

As a result, the committee voted to request an extension of the comment period to January 8, 2010, rather than the current deadline of November 6 of this year. The unanimous vote reflected unusual agreement between committee members who voiced support for the plan and those who expressed problems with significant parts of it.

However, all agreed that after the seemingly endless delays in releasing the plan, the public deserved more time to review the 212 page document. As Stephen Box put it, noting that L.A. allows more time to review new sanitation plans, it makes it appear that in the city's eyes, "Cyclists rate below trash."

While they said it might be possible to extend the deadline, none of the representatives of DOT in attendance claimed the authority to do so, nor did they explain the process required to get an extension.

A brief introduction to a very complex plan

The affable Jordann Turner from the Dept. of City Planning lead the council through a brief overview of the proposed bike plan, intended to replace the original 1996 bike plan that was reauthorized by the council in 2007 to remain eligible for federal funding.

As Turner noted, the goal of the plan is to create a continuous bicycle system that extends throughout the city, with a system of collector routes that would leave no resident more than a mile from the network. The plan also creates a technical design handbook that would provide design guidance for all bicycle types and roadway situations, and form a template for city agencies to follow.

He also touched on the conflicts inherent in off-road cycling within the city, as various groups, including cyclists, hikers and equestrians battle for limited trail space. Turner said the city had brought in a professional negotiator to try to develop recommendations that would accommodate all users.

In addition, the plan attempts to prioritize projects so they can be identified and move forward quickly as funding becomes available. And it was suggested that it's not difficult process to amend the plan, so if anyone thinks something was missed, they should offer suggestions on how it can be changed.

There was also talk that one more workshop may be scheduled for East L.A., though no details were available.

A mixed reaction from the committee

While a handful of committee members expressed satisfaction with the plan - and one member even suggested cyclists should be grateful for "what they have now" - several of the panel members expressed serious concerns.

Brad House, representing the 15th Council District, asked why the Cyclist's Bill of Rights wasn't included in the bike plan. Michele Mowery, Senior Bicycle Coordinator for LADOT, said that portions of the CBOR that the city has jurisdiction over were incorporated into the plan, while some parts that the city doesn't have jurisdiction over were left out.

That lead much eye rolling in the audience, particularly from Box, who later expressed amazement that any part of it would be "outside the city's jurisdiction," and questioned just what those parts could be.

Thirteenth District representative Joe Linton voiced his frustration that the current plan included 50 fewer miles of bikeways than the plan adopted 13 years earlier. "That seems like a retreat from the '96 plan, which was already a little whimpy." And he complained that streets that had formerly been listed as "designated" for bike lanes were now considered merely "proposed."

The real fireworks came from Chair Person Glenn Bailey, who showed visible anger as he complained about the short window for comments, noting that only a 6-day period was allotted for all four scheduled workshops. He went on to suggest that every Neighborhood Council in the city should receive the same bike plan CD that had been provided to the committee. "What would that cost? Twenty-five cents times 89? Let's get it out there."

And he drew a round of applause from the audience for insisting that the bike plan should have the rule of law if it's adopted by the council.

Police HQ bike parking, and other matters

While the bike plan took up most of the evening's discussion, more sparks flew when a motion was made to hold the next meeting at Deaton Auditorium in the new police headquarters downtown.

Box complained about inadequate bicycle parking at the new building, pointing out that the street level parking was at the far edge of the facility, behind nine planters and completely out of view from any watchful eyes. His wife Enci pointed out that no woman would feel comfortable leaving her bike there, especially after dark.

Bailey explained out that additional bike parking was included in the plans for the parking garage; however, he was not allowed access when he attempted to examine it. A motion was finally passed to hold the next meeting at Deaton, but to request that LAPD provide safe and secure bike parking prior to the meeting; Bailey also suggested that riders be allowed to bring their bikes inside the auditorium.

Other matters included requesting that space for bikes be maintained on Westwood Blvd during and after construction of the Expo line, and that bikes be accommodated in any redesign of Pico and Olympic Boulevards.

Tuesday night also marked the first meeting for Ramona Marks, the panel's newest member, and currently, the only woman on the panel, representing District 1. Marks is the current membership coordinator for the Friends of the Los Angeles River and has served as Treasurer for the Bicycle Kitchen.

A meeting of the B.A.C earlier this year. Photo: Ubrayj02/Flickr

Okay, so the Bicycle Advisory Committee isn’t really a secret. But it might as well be.

Stop any cyclist on the street and ask about the BAC. Chances are, you’ll be greeted with a blank stare – or insistence that he or she can still ride safely, despite a high blood alcohol content.

Yet for the last 35 years, the BAC has served to give L.A. cyclists a voice in the governmental process. The 19 members – four appointed by the mayor and 15 appointed city council members, one per district – provide a forum to address the issues facing local riders, with a direct line to the mayor’s office and the council, as well as the Department of Transportation.

Which is not to say they always listen, or actually do anything about it.

As the name implies, the committee serves an advisory role, with no legislative authority of their own. The power they have stems from the collective voice of the cyclists they represent; and lately, that voice has been little more than a whisper.

Take last night’s committee meeting.

Despite the fact that it offered the first opportunity to discuss the proposed new bike plan, only a dozen or so audience members bothered to show up. This in a city of nearly 4 million people, with an estimated 1,524,00 to 1,788,000 bike riders, depending on the methodology used.

Be honest. You weren’t there.

Unless you’re actually on the council, or your name is Bray-Ali, Box, Thompson, Roadblock, Smolarski or a handful of others, you were content to let other people fight your battles for you. Or you’re happy with the state of cycling in Los Angeles as it is right now – which is pretty hard to believe.

Or you had no idea there even is a BAC.

Granted, they could make it easier to get involved. It’s not easy to get to the meeting site in Downtown L.A. if you live in outlying areas, especially so close after rush hour. Yet there’s no mechanism in place to offer feedback or suggestions without being in attendance, unless you happen to have the email address of a council member.

The BAC’s website should provide an email address for every member, or at least a general form for providing comments that can be forwarded to the individual members. It could, and should, be updated more often to reflect to business before the committee, as well as other issues facing L.A. cyclists.

It should also offer a link to each individual council member, as well as members of the mayor’s staff and the DOT, so concerned cyclists can more easily reach out to the people who really do make the decisions that affect our safety and comfort on the city’s streets.

It also wouldn’t hurt if the local online media, including Streesblog – and yes, my own site, because I’m a guilty as anyone else – did more to promote the agenda and upcoming meetings.

The next one is scheduled for Dec. 1, so mark your calendars and get involved. Because the silence of cyclists are responsible for the bikeways, streets and policies we have now.

In the end, it really wasn’t about David Byrne.

Even though it was billed as An Evening With David Byrne, anyone who attended last Friday’s panel discussion at the Aratani/Japan American Theater in Little Tokyo expecting rock star insights from the former Talking Head and current Bicycle Diaries author would have been disappointed.

Clearly, though, that wasn’t what the evening was about.

Instead of a delivering a sermon on bikes and livability, he was here to start a conversation. And rather than using his celebrity to get people to listen to him, he used it to get us to listen to people we should have been listening to all along.

Which isn’t to say that he wasn’t entertaining, or that he didn’t manage to make his key points, which was that livable cities require effective planning and public spaces that allow people to interact with one another. It also doesn’t mean that he didn’t have a book to sell, autographed copies of which flew off the sales tables in the lobby after the show.

However, after a brief initial presentation, Byrne stepped aside and let the evening’s real stars – UCLA urban planning professor Donald Shoup, Michelle Mowery, Senior Bicycle Coordinator for the Los Angeles Department of Transportation, and cycling activist Jimmy Lizama, co-founder of the Bicycle Kitchen – take center stage.

The role of bikes in a more livable world

Byrne kicked things off with a series of slides showing how the futurist urban plans of the early 20th Century led to today’s impersonal concrete-lined streets, noting that people don’t fit into modern urban design. "This is pathetic, the way cities treat their citizens." He also talked about the unique view of urban life offered from the saddle of a bike, and offered slides of bike infrastructure – good and bad – from around the world.

Introduced as a "parking rock star" – which he noted isn’t the same as a real rock star – Donald Shoup offered an amusing look at the wasted space and high costs required to park the endless parade cars that pass through our cities every day. He went on to discuss the problem of drivers endlessly circling city streets looking for underpriced curbside parking, rather than pay market prices; as he put it, "drivers cruising for parking really are on a road to nowhere." He noted how bikes can help reduce these problems, and looked at bicycling infrastructure that "works," including physically separated bike lanes, contraflow lanes and bicycle boulevards – adding that you could build a dozen bike boulevards for about what it cost to build two recent roundabout in Westwood.

As an audience member said, Jimmy Lizama was the real rock star of the evening, drawing a huge round of applause simply for taking the stage. In a rapid-fire stream-of-consciousness style that made note taking almost impossible, he told the story of his transformation from a non-rider to bike commuter to bike messenger to one of the area’s most respected bike activists. "The L.A. I know and love is bicycle and pedestrian friendly," he said, and later added, "I like the freeways, I think they’d make great bicycle paths."

Respect for someone local cyclists thought they knew

Perhaps the biggest surprise of the evening was the grudging respect earned by Mowery.

As LADOT’s Senior Bicycle Coordinator for the last 15 years, Michele Mowery is the government official L.A. cyclists love to hate – a Fully Assimilated Bureaucratician, as one local bike writer recently put it, and for many riders, the public face of LADOT’s perceived failure in providing effective cycling infrastructure in the city.

Yet her brief presentation suggested that image could be the result of forces beyond her control, from a lack of funding to a bureaucracy that seldom supports cycling. Improving bikeways doesn’t just happen, according to Mowery; it takes technical support, funding and the political will to make changes. "We need an educated and excited constituency to speak to elected officials on the local, state and federal levels," she said.

She also positioned the proposed new bike plan, not as an end in itself, but as something to revisit and build on for the future. The key, she said, is finding a way to communicate to motorists and authorities that we have equal rights to the road. Cyclists need to write letters – not just emails, but actual hard copy letters that can be passed around and shared – because elected officials don’t hear from bicyclists often enough. "They need to hear from all of us."

News was also made during the question and answer period, when it was announced that plans are in motion for the city’s first cyclovia – or cicLAvia, as the organizers put it – with a $25,000 grant from the California Endowment. In addition, it was announced that a $1.5 million grant has been awarded to build L.A.’s first bike station at the L.A. Convention Center downtown.

The panel was as part of the ALOUD series, presented by the Library Foundation of Los Angeles.

Since Ted Rogers has done a better job covering the CD5 Council Race than I anyway, I thought why not make it official. For the rest of his coverage, check out Biking in LA.

Call it the once and future debate.

This past Monday night, David Vahedi and Paul Koretz — the candidates running to replace Jack Weiss as council person representing L.A.’s 5^th Council District — met in a debate on the UCLA campus.

Hosted by the appropriately named Bruins for Traffic Relief, the event was co-sponsored by ABC7 and Manatt Phelps & Philips, LLC, with an assist from the League of Women Voters, and mediated by ABC7’s Adrienne Alpert.

To say it started slowly would be an understatement.

The two candidates seemed more like boxers clinching in the ring for much of the event, They finally began swinging away towards the end of the hour-long debate, as Koretz accused Vahedi of accepting donations from a developer, despite his insistence to the contrary.

The gloves came off again briefly when the two questioned whether it would be possible to put the planned Expo Line crossing at Overland Avenue below grade; both favored it, noting the heavy traffic and a nearby elementary school. However, Koretz questioned whether it would be possible due to increased costs, while Vahedi insisted it could be done, noting that it was the council member’s job to protect local residents.

Both candidates disagreed with current proposals to raise revenues by outsourcing operations of various city functions, such as privatizing parking meters. Vahedi suggested that the city should focus on cutting waste instead, such as a recent multi-million dollar expenditure to replace what he characterized as “perfectly good” trash cans.

Meanwhile, Koretz noted that construction crews usually end the day with excess cement, which invariably goes to waste. He recommended reaching an agreement with private firms to use that excess cement to patch city sidewalks, saying that it could help them solve a waste disposal problem while saving the city millions of dollars, and fix sidewalks that might otherwise take years to repair.

Vahedi called for a Metro Park and Ride system that would travel down the 405, connecting Valley residents to job sites in Century City and along the Wilshire corridor, as well as city-owned parking facilities near other major transit lines. Koretz recommended an overhaul of the city transportation plan, saying that instead of spending billions to build subways, the city should look into innovative above-ground options, such as an advanced personalized rapid transit system — something Alpert characterized as a fantasy plan, drawing the biggest laugh of the night.

Alpert asked both candidates for their top three priorities for spending stimulus funds; Koretz listed transportation, infrastructure and affordable housing. Vahedi suggested sufficient hospitals, mass transit and schools, as well as funding additional scholarship programs.

The debate will be televised on ABC7 this May, on a date to be determined.