At Ease, Soldier: A young member of the East Side Riders proudly poses with his bike at the Watts Towers.

Several years ago, I spent a week photographing a stretch of 37th St. as part of a neighborhood documentation project of the area around USC. Where other photographers had diligently snapped structures and streets, I had cajoled residents into participating in the project and later gave them copies of the photos so they could see the final product. The soul of a neighborhood is its people, I had argued in defending my approach at the time. Without them, the structures are just a shell.

I was reminded of this while surveying the scene at Augustus Hawkins Natural Park on a chilly Sunday morning in late January. About 60 riders had shown up to participate in the CicLAvia South L.A. Exploration Ride through Watts. Each had a different motivation for being there. Some simply enjoyed participating in exploratory group rides. Those unfamiliar with the area came to check out our landmark destination, the Watts Towers. Others were linked to the CicLAvia South L.A. Host Committee, TRUST South L.A., C.I.C.L.E., or the BikeRoWave, the groups facilitating the ride. Still others were from the Watts-based East Side Riders (ESR), eager to make the case for Watts to be included in the CicLAvia expansion route.

Finally, a sizable contingent—at least 20%—came to document the ride, including the L.A. Times, KPCC’s OnCentral, the Annenberg Innovation Lab, filmmakers from Ride: In Living Color, folks from ParTour (a USC initiative harnessing new media and mobile technology to advance positive social change), and, of course, Streetsblog. The apparent newsworthiness of this crossing of socio-economic boundaries served to underscore how infrequently it occurs, even in a city as diverse as ours.

The ride was a continuation of the Committee’s efforts to host monthly rides into South LA. The larger purpose was to promote cycling and show the value of livable streets in communities, bridge gaps between communities by helping people explore new areas, demonstrate proper riding techniques and the rules of the road, and, in the case of ParTour, to engage participants in the creation of a crowd-sourced map of the route to showcase South L.A. as a rideable destination.

On just about all those counts, the organizers of the ride could consider it to have been incredibly successful, something for which they should be commended.

Seeing curious faces poking their heads out of doors and windows as we rolled by, however, I wondered if residents viewed the successes in the same way. To what extent did they grasp the goals of the ride or feel inspired by seeing bikers pass down their streets? Know about (or even have an interest in) the crowd-sourced map? Or agree that bridges were being built between their community and others?

It was hard to know, as, for the most part, we did not stop to interact with those who smiled and waved their greetings as we passed.

Some members of the ESR who had grown up along these streets voiced frustration that this was an important part of the real Watts that we were missing: the people. Moreover, the limited amount of time we would be in the neighborhood and a desire to see CicLAvia extend southward seemed to add to the pressure they felt to make sure participants would see enough to appreciate the community for what it was. Simply riding a route to a landmark, they noted, did little to help others see their community a destination.

To mitigate some of these concerns, both the ESR and the ride organizers had collaborated to work in a stop at the Watts Labor Community Action Committee (WLCAC) to begin the process of bridge-building. It was a great move—a number of the riders in the group mentioned being inspired by the talk given by the WLCAC’s president and CEO, Tim Watkins, about the community and their work, and said they had not known about the WLCAC prior to visiting.

Post-talk, riders gathered together for a group photo at the Mother of Humanity statue, agreed it had been a fun ride, and then hit the road, headed back to the original starting point.

Lovely a ride as it was, would people return on their own to visit the community? Would people in the community now feel inspired to take back the streets for bikes? What were the longer-term gains for the community? What should they be?

Best Friends: Frederick Buggs and Joshua Jones of the East Side Riders roll down Holmes Blvd. together

There is only so much that can be accomplished with a single ride event. But if we seek to use cycling to bridge divides and make the communities themselves the destinations, then we may need to think about innovative ways to get more out of future such events. Cyclists tend to focus on finding routes that make it easy to move through places to points of interest when mapping rides. Thus, when community is built, it tends to be among those participating in the ride, not with those we pedal by. Genuine, sustainable bridges between communities clearly requires greater engagement of the residents of an area — both cyclists and non-cyclists — in such a way that the people of a community are able to participate in and contribute to the experience.

But what does that look like in practice? How much and what kind of outreach does that require? To figure it out, over the next few weeks, I will be retracing some of the route taken through Watts that day and interviewing residents to get their perspectives on these and the other questions raised above. Stay tuned for part two…

Photo: @jackNruth/Twitter via @MikeLydon

This Twitter photo of LeBron James biking to American Airlines Arena before facing off against Derrick Rose and the Chicago Bulls last night has gone viral on sports news sites all over America.

There are some interesting sociological currents swirling around LeBron James, bike commuter. While the photographer labeled James a “manchild” for taking to Miami’s none-too-friendly streets on a bike, the prevailing sentiment in the ESPN comments section seems to be that the sight of LeBron riding to work will help rehab his public image.

After the Heat edged the Bulls, James told reporters in the locker room that bike commuting is pretty routine for him. In fact, he seems to enjoy talking about the bike ride more than the basketball game:

The Heat forward isn’t as vocal about his modal proclivities as say, Baltimore Orioles pitcher Jeremy Guthrie, but he sure has a higher pulpit if he ever chooses to speak up about street safety. Our friends at Transit Miami are hoping LeBron the bike commuter can quicken the pace of change in south Florida: “Maybe now we can get some Lebron-sized bicycle lanes.”

The efforts that Long Beach has made to become a “bike friendly city” have earned the city praise from sources both near and far. Joining the chorus is Supervisor Zev Yaroslavsky who recently completed a bike tour of the city with a film crew from his award winning “Zev Web” news blog.

The film features a lot of familiar faces, including the Bike Coalition’s executive director Jennifer Klausner, assorted members of the City of Long Beach’s bicycle team, Vice Mayor Suja Lowenthal and eventually the Supervisor himself. “There’s a lot we can learn from Long Beach,” he asserts.

But most of the video is footage from the bike tour with narration provided directly from mini-talks given by Long Beach’s mobility coordinator Charlie Gandy. The charismatic Texan proves a good tour guide as he weaves the team through Bike Station, Downtown Long Beach, the Vista Street Bike Boulevard and the Long Beach Bike Path.

The video feels so much like a Streetfilm that it provides a smooth update to Long Beach Shifts Cycling into High Gear, 2010 Long Beach tour completed by Clarence Eckerson Jr. The most dramatic difference has to be the Vista Street Bike Boulevard. In 2010, Gandy was able to provide plans and renderings. Less than two years later, city staff is already touting the safety difference of their road treatments.

Safety data does a world of good when arguing for more infrastructure. Not mentioned in the film is that the success of Vista Street has led to Long Beach planning six already-funded Bike Boulevards around the city.

New bike lanes on Cahuenga Boulevard in Hollywood - among the 12 new miles of bike lanes implemented in late 2011.

The good news: the city of Los Angeles is implementing more bike lanes than ever before. From July 2011 through December 2011, the city of Los Angeles has implemented 12.5 miles of new bike lanes. This is by far the highest total for any six-month period since at least 1996, and probably the most ever. For the past decade or so, the city has averaged roughly two-to-three miles of new bike lanes every six months.

The bad news: according to Streetsblog’s accounting, despite the stepped-up efforts, the city is not quite on track to fulfill Mayor Villaraigosa’s directive “to build 40 miles of bikeways a year” beginning with Fiscal Year 2011-2012.

After the jump, this article will enumerate just what new bikeway mileage has been done, and how the city may be able to get the 40 new bikeways pledged.

First some background.

Where does that “40 miles a year” come from?

Included with the March 2011 approval of the city’s “2010″ Bike Plan was a supplemental document called the Five-Year Implementation Strategy. That document was initially called the Five-Year Implementation Plan, later renamed the 200 Mile Implementation Strategy, then approved as the Five-Year Implementation Strategy (abbreviated hereafter as the “5-Year Plan.”) In August 2010, L.A. Streetsblog reviewed the initial draft of the 5-Year Plan calling it “ambitious” and “a big improvement compared to past performance.”

The 5-Year Plan includes 253 miles of bikeways that the city will implement over 6 years. Even though it’s called “5-Year” there was a year zero through year five, which, in initial drafts, corresponded to years 2010 through 2015… though this was removed when the 2010 Bike Plan approval dragged out into 2011. Still, the 5-Year Plan includes 250 miles to be implemented in 6 years, so, doing the division, this means 40 miles per year.

When the bike plan was approved in March2011, the 5-Year Plan’s “40 miles a year” number was announced by city staff and elected officials. Mayor Villaraigosa put the forty-mile figure in writing in a July 1st 2011 Mayoral Directive which states the city’s “commitment to build 40 miles of bikeways a year.”

Though the 40 mile number appears to be taken from the 5-Year Plan, but there’s no explicit connection between mileage and plan in the mayor’s pledge. The pledge is to build 40 miles. Note also that the pledge is “bikeways” – a catch-all term that can include all the various types of bike facilities from bike paths to bike lanes to bike routes to bike boulevards, etc.

In July 2011, L.A. Streetsblog reviewed city bikeway implementation under the assumption that the 40 miles pledged pertained to calendar year 2011. Upon publication of that article, mayoral and City Planning Department staff contacted Streetsblog and clarified that the 40 miles pledge clock didn’t start until Fiscal Year 2011-2012: July 1st 2011 to June 30th 2012.

Photo of the new Sharrows on Arden: Joe Anthony/Bike Commute News

In August 2011, LADOT announced it would implement 20 miles of sharrows - shared lane markings. The LADOT’s list of sharrow streets did not correspond to the city’s 5-Year Plan nor the city’s Bike Plan, both approved only 6 months prior. LADOT implemented the sharrows in October 2011.

Do the sharrows count toward building “40 miles a year” pledged?

Streetsblog queried LADOT about the sharrows and whether they count toward the 40 mile pledge. LADOT responded that “it is the City’s intent to include sharrows as a part of the Mayor’s commitment to implement 40 miles of bikeways this fiscal year.”

There are a number of reasons why sharrows wouldn’t count.

First, by doing sharrow projects not in the city’s 5-Year Plan, the city falls behind on the 5-Year Plan implementation. If the city does only half (20 miles instead of 40) of its 5-Year Plan’s annual mileage, then the very notion of calling it a 5-Year document is ludicrous. At the rate the city is implementing it right now, the 5-Year Plan is looking like at least a 12-year plan.

Another problem with the sharrows is the sheer annual mileage compared to what was approved last March. Sharrows are worthwhile, less so than bike lanes, but worthwhile. Sharrows are so worthwhile that the Mayor and Council approved 7.7 miles of them in the 5-Year Plan… that’s 1-2 miles of sharrows each year (7.7 miles divided by 6 years.) In the initial year, instead of implementing 1-2 miles of sharrows, the city has instead done 20 miles.  If LADOT can get away with 20 miles in the first year of plan implementation, what’s to keep them from doing all 40 miles sharrows the second year? If LADOT consistently downgrades what’s already been approved, it looks like a cynical bait and switch, disrespectful of the nearly six years of public process that went into coming up with the Bike Plan.

Why is the city ignoring the 5-Year Plan so soon, and relying so heavily on sharrows? It’s not clear. Only LADOT knows the real answer. Sharrows are cheap and quick, so it appears that instead of implementing what was approved, and instead of actually analyzing what treatments make sense for the bicycle network, LADOT is eager to fulfill the easiest quickest 40 miles they can do to fulfill the letter of the “build 40 miles a year” pledge, without actually paying heed to its intent of building out a network of safe comfortable places to ride.

But do the sharrows actually fulfill the letter of the pledge? The pledge includes the word “build” not the word “re-build.” If the city has a mile of existing bike route and it adds a mile of sharrows on that existing bike route, it still only has a mile of bike route. No new mileage has been added.

Re-doing existing mileage should not be counted toward the 40-mile pledge. If the city re-does the Westholme sharrows, or re-paints the Venice Boulevard bike lanes after a developer erases them, it doesn’t add any mileage to the bikeway network, hence it shouldn’t count toward a pledge to “build 40 miles a year.” The mayor’s pledge to “build” implies new mileage.

How much mileage did those October sharrows add to the city’s bike network? The city implemented 20 miles of sharrows in October 2011. According to the mileage listed in the city’s Bike Plan, 12 of these miles were already existing bike routes (see this spreadsheet for totals.) So the city’s ill-considered sharrows binge “built” only 8 miles of new bikeways (routes), and re-did 12 existing miles.

For this article, L.A. Streetsblog  acknowledges 8 new miles of bike routes, and does this begrudgingly (because, as explained above, based on the 5-Year Plan, the city approved implementing only 7.7 miles in 6 years, so 8 miles in 1 year still disrespects the approved plan and the process that lead to it.)

What has LADOT built since July 1st 2011?

As mentioned at the top of the article, the city has had a very productive six months for the start of FY2011-2012. With 12.46 new miles of bike lane built, it’s the most productive six months in at least 15 years, probably the most ever.

LADOT has completed their first bike lanes in Boyle Heights, Downtown L.A., Hollywood, Koreatown, and Westlake. While the majority of the projects have been straightforward, with no reduction in car lanes, a few have successfully reduced car lanes, and, in one instance, removed two blocks of San Fernando Valley curb parking. Inspired by Dutch ThinkBike sessions, the city has implemented its first significant buffered bike lane, and its first two pilot green-colored pavement projects.

While the process hasn’t been perfect, more than ever before for bike projects, LADOT has worked with Council Offices, Neighborhood Councils, the city Bicycle Advisory Committee, bike non-profit organizations including the L.A. County Bicycle Coalition, businesses, adjacent cities, and others – all resulting in new facilities being implemented with a minimum of backlash to date.

Since July 1st 2011, LADOT has completed the following bike lane projects, listed roughly in the order in which they were installed:

• Wentworth Street - Wheatland to Foothill 1.3miles (Shadow Hills)
• Woodley Avenue - Saticoy to Sherman 0.28 mile (Van Nuys)
• Jefferson Blvd - La Brea to La Cienega 0.99mile (South L.A.)
• 7th Street - Catalina to Figueroa 2.2miles (Westlake-Koreatown)
• 1st Street - Boyle to Lorena 1.6miles (Boyle Heights)
• Cahuenga Blvd - Odin to Yucca 0.6mile (Hollywood)
• Reseda Blvd - Roscoe to Parthenia 0.5mile (Reseda)
• Tuxford Street - Lankershim to Glenoaks 1.3miles (Sunland)
• Vermont Avenue  – Del Amo to Knox 0.54mile (Harbor Gateway)
• Spring Street - Chavez to 9th 1.5miles (Downtown)
• Washington Place - Albright to Grand View 0.77mile (Mar Vista)
• Chandler Blvd - Leghorn to Woodman 0.88 mile (Van Nuys)
• TOTAL 12.46miles COMPLETED BIKE LANES

According to LADOT reports, the following additional new bike lane projects are slated for implementation in the very near future, likely within the current fiscal year:

• Aviation Blvd – Imperial Hwy to Century 0.98mile (LAX – per Bike Plan Qrtly Report)
• Devonshire Street – Reseda to Hayvenhurst 2.49miles (Northridge source – per Bike Plan Qrtly Report)
• Foothill Blvd – Wheatland to Wentworth 1.5miles (Lake View Terrace – per Bike Plan Qrtly Report)
• Main Street – Grand Blvd to city of Santa Monica 0.9mile (Venice - per Bike Plan Qrtly Report)
• Main Street – 9th to 16th 0.7mile (Downtown – per DLANC website)
• Porter Ranch Drive – Rinaldi to Corbin 0.5mile (Porter Ranch – per LADOT website)
• Rose Avenue – Lincoln to 4th 0.47mile (Venice - per Bike Plan Qrtly Report)
• Vermont Avenue – I105 to 88th Street 2.1miles (South L.A. – per Bike Plan Qrtly Report)
• York Blvd – Avenue 55 to Figueroa 0.9mile (Highland Park - per Bike Plan Qrtly Report)
• TOTAL 10.54miles NEAR-FUTURE NEW BIKE LANES

All in all, based on what’s complete and what’s projected, the city of Los Angeles appears to be on track to reach a grand total of 31 new miles in its bikeway network in FY 2011-2012.

• Completed new bike lane mileage: 12. 46 miles
• Completed new bike route (sharrow) mileage: 8.04 miles
• Near-furure new bike lane mileage: 10.54 miles
• FY2011-2012 PROJECTED TOTAL BIKEWAYS BUILT:  31.04 miles

It’s a bit short of “build[ing] 40 miles a year,” but it’s a big improvement on past performance; and it’s making a significant difference in the commutes of Angelenos. While L.A. isn’t biketopia yet, bicyclists and drivers are seeing more new bike lanes and routes. The lanes make bicycling safer, and, overall, the infrastructure cues all road users to the fact that bicycling is legitimate and growing mode of transportation in Los Angeles.

Lastly, a gentle plea to Mayor Villaraigosa: if 31 new miles a year isn’t enough, and you really want to get to 40 new miles built this fiscal year, there are still quite a few relatively easy low-hanging-fruit bike lane projects out there awaiting implementation. Some are listed here. There’s still nearly six months left in the fiscal year.

What a difference a few weeks make.

Before the Thanksgiving break, Streetsblog reported on how many Westside bicyclists were concerned about bike planning for Phase II of the Expo Line.  While planning for the second phase of the light rail portion of the Expo Light Rail project is nearly 60% complete, the bicycle planning hasn’t really begun.   One of the main reasons for the delay is that Caltrans had not certified environmental documents needed before the bike planning could begin.  To make matters worse, the Culver City Bicycle Coalition complained that a planned bike-transit center for the Culver City station seemed to be dropped from the plans.

But much of that has changed.  Caltrans has granted the Categorical Exclusion (CE) needed for bikeay construction to begin, a prerequisite for the Expo Construction Authority to begin planning the bikeway.  The Authority also announced that it will soon create a long-promised bicycle advisory committee to help with the bicycle plans for Phase II.

To top it all off, a bike parking plan for the Culver City Station was presented, although advocates want to see a greater commitment to bring a bike-transit facility to Culver City.

“Both the City of Los Angeles and City of Santa Monica have obtained environmental clearance for the bikeway project,” begins Gabriela Collins, spokesperson for the Expo Construction Authority.  ”Once the funding from both cities comes through, Expo plans to contract the bikeway design and construction to Skanska Rados, a Joint Venture, the current design-build contractor for the guideway.  The Bicycle Advisory Committee will be brought to the Expo Board for approval at that time.”

While many bike advocates cheered the news that the CE has been finalized, there are still some lingering concerns that the Expo Construction Authority wasted time waiting for environmental clearances for bikeways while the rail project planning moved forward.

Will this design ever become reality?

“The bikeway was inevitable, so it is unfortunate that preliminary engineering of the bikeway was not done at the same time,” says Jonathan Weiss, a member of the City of Los Angeles Bicycle Advisory Committee.  ”How many bikeway options have been foreclosed because of this avoidable delay?  Thankfully, the City of L.A. has ramped up its support and unstuck the bikeway design.”

Federal funding for the bikeway project has already been guaranteed, so it would seem that the bikeway project could finally be moving forward.  However, there’s still one more hurdle that could be placed in front of the Bikeway.  There’s no guarantee that the group of homeowners that have sued to stall the bike project thus far could bring suit against the new CE as well.

Meanwhile in Culver City, a small campaign to urge the Construction Authority to bring a bike plan to the Culver City Expo stop has met with success.

“The Culver City station will have 10 bike racks and 8 bike lockers available to the public when the station opens in early 2012,” explains Collins. “The Clean Mobility Center (CMC) was deferred because its location conflicted with the construction staging area for the Venice Boulevard Bridge, which is being built as part of Phase 2.  However, the necessary provisions were made at the station site for the addition of the CMC in the future. “

Jim Shanman with the Culver City Bicycle Coalition wrote a letter to supporters after the last meeting of the Expo Construction Authority Board of Directors noting that staff said that, “the CMC could conceivably begin (construction) as soon as the bridge is far enough along that the area in question won’t be affected by the construction, maybe as soon as 12 months.”

It may not have happened as quickly as some would want, but bikeway planning is finally underway for Expo Phase II in the City of Los Angeles.  Whether it’s in time to create the bike infrastructure cyclists want and deserve remains to be seen.

Signage at Santa Monica Boulevard and 14th Street in Santa Monica. Thanks, Andrew Ellis Miller

After years of being considered the most bike-friendly city in the Southland, Santa Monica fell behind Long Beach in recent years both in terms of infrastructure and cyclists imagination.  However, in recent months, the city once known as the People’s Republic of Santa Monica for embracing many of the most progressive ideals imaginable (at least in America) is playing catch-up.

First, there was the widely-praised release of a Bike Plan that promises miles of new bike lanes and more progressive designs to rival Long Beach.  Next was Bike Center.  Today, cyclists are noticing signage, on the street and on the poll, that give bikes a chance to be counted at intersections and get their own greens.

Reader Andrew Ellis Miller sends the picture to the right and reports that he’s noticing bike markings at intersections along Wilshire Boulevard.

Giving cyclists an equal chance to cross the street is one of the signs of a bike friendly city.  Not only does it increase safety, it decreases the number of times drivers will witness a fed up cyclist, frustrated at a long wait, choosing to cross against a red light.

Ugh. Photo: Joe Anthony of Bike Commute News via Instagram

The culprit appears to be an overanxious LADOT who wanted to have the lanes ready for the Monday press conference, even though the weekend preceding the Monday event was a wet one.   In the week preceding the press event, officials warned that the conference could be moved if weather didn’t allow the painting to occur over the weekend.  Quality of paint shouldn’t have been an issue as L.A. spent $50,000 for the green paint job (according to the Times) which is ten times what Long Beach spent on its Green Sharrowed Lane.

Meanwhile other commuters are grumbling that the green paint, where it does remain, masks some large and deep potholes.   One reader, who I do not have permission to quote by name, wrote of the potholes and paint:

These conditions suggest that the creation of this lane is about a DOT that isn’t truly committed to better bike infrastructure, but instead is about political PR.  Otherwise, basic standards of construction and user safety would have been employed.  While the lane’s design is strong, the execution is exceptionally weak.

For its part, the LADOT is guaranteeing that lane will be repainted soon.  ”Rest assured LADOT crews will be back to touch up spots on Spring St,” writes Bruce Gillman, the LADOT spokesperson.  ”We are awaiting new paint to be delivered and a stint of dry weather to assure second application gets put down without too much moisture present.”

At this point, there is no timeline to repave the road.

Santa Monica, Bike Center:

The outside of Bike Center. Photo via The Source

We start with today’s opening of what might be the largest bike parking facility in all of the United States of America.  The mammoth $2 million full-service “Santa Monica Bike Center,” is a joint product of the People’s Republic and Metro.  Bike Center is actually two locations (Parking Structure 7 at 320 Broadway and Parking Structure 8 at 215 Colorado) in the center of downtown with a combined 5,300 square-feet of space and nearly 360 secure bicycle parking spaces.  To the best of my research, the next largest bike parking facility, Chicago’s McDonald’s Cycle Center, has “only” 300 spaces.

The Center will provide secure bike parking, retail, bike repair, bike rental, attended bike parking, and could serve as a center for other bicycle related activity in the same way Long Beach’s Bike Station hosts classes and is the starting point for bike stores. For more information, check out the Bike Center web site.

Anticipating the light rail that is on it’s way, Bike Center is also built close to the future terminus of Phase II of the Expo Line.  Metro staff talks about riders being able to bike to their closest Expo stop, take the bike with them on the train, and then having a safe and convenient place to park if their plans don’t include taking their bike with them when the line is completed.

A grand opening event is scheduled for later today and will be followed by an all-weekend open house featuring free bicycle parking, free bicycle rides and tours of the facility.  For more information on the events, click here.

Burbank, Bike Stop:

Bike Stop! Image via The Source, again.

Burbank’s Bike Stop doesn’t compete with the mammoth Bike Center in Santa Monica, but does provide a facility for 40 bicycles to park near Burbank’s Metrolink Station.  The Glendale News-Press outlines why the Stop is a leap forward:

The downtown Burbank Metrolink station is busy a hub for commuters from Antelope Valley and those working in Glendale and Los Angeles. The Bike Stop — partially funded by the California Department of Transportation — gives bicyclists a spot to park their bikes for free, instead of having to lug their equipment around from station to station.

Bike Stop doesn’t have a staffer on-hand all day, but does have a passcode protected security system and space for some bike classes that could be used to expand the parking if demand calls for it.

Culver City, …. :

Here’s something you probably won’t read in The Source.  The Culver City Bike Coalition (CCBC) is demanding to know what happened to their public cycling center?  While Phase II of the Expo Line is getting a Bike Center at its terminus.  The Phase I terminus is getting….nothing.

Which is a shame for two reasons.  First, Culver City has done an admirable job creating a “downtown connector” to provide an attractive way for cyclists to get to and from the station from Downtown Culver City and other points west.  Secondly, there was originally supposed to be a bike parking center that presumably would at least be similar in style to Burbank’s Bike Stop, but it was dropped from plans for the station.  CCBC blames the Expo Construction Authority for a lack of planning, foresight and funds in their weekly column in the Culver City News:

The Expo Authority has concluded that a partial solution to its notorious budget-overrun problems is to axe the Culver City bicycle facility. But why should cycling commuters and travelers take the hit for the Expo Authority’s issues? Especially when cycling is such an essential component of our transition to a less automobile-centric metropolis?

The CCBC plans to “make a little noise” in the coming weeks and months to try and get their Bike Station/Center/Stop.  If you want to help them make that noise, their piece in the Culver City News contains the contact information you need to get noisy.

The bike lanes for Phase I of the Expo Line was disappointing, but at least it happened...

One year later, the story hasn’t changed much.  The city is still involved in a back and forth with Caltrans over the city’s efforts to get an ironclad CE from Caltrans, but at this point there is no time frame for the documents to be approved.  A pair of anonymous sources has confirmed that Caltrans won’t issue it until legal issues with the local homeowners are resolved.

Needless to say, there is no timeline for that, either.

So while no timeline is in place for environmental approval of the bike path nor a timeline to hire a contractor to design it, ground has broken for Phase II of the Expo Line and the bike path remains in limbo.

“For some agencies, this is the old story about cycling being an afterthought,” fumes Jonathan Weiss, a member of the city’s Bicycle Advisory Committee.

Perhaps even worse than the delay is that decisions are being made on the design of Phase II routing, crossings, and stations without bicyclists input.  Despite Expo CEO James Thorpe’s promise to Westside Councilman and Expo Construction Authority Board Member, Bill Rosendahl, that a bicycle advisory committee would be formed, none has.  Expo staff say that the committee will be formed when a contractor is brought on for bikeway design, but with design and construction work underway now for the light rail line, it seems as though cyclist input could be useful.

“As we have learned at recent Expo Urban Design Committee meetings, design work is underway that will impact bikeway planning,” explains long time Expo bikeway advocate Kent Strumpell, who also chairs the city’s Bicycle Advisory Committee Subcommittee on Planning.  ”In light of this, it makes no sense to suggest that a bicycle advisory committee would be of no use at this time.  Decisions could be made that will compromise the optimal integration of the bikeway, possibly missing important opportunities to get it right.”

But for now, no bicycle advisory committee, no agreement on when the bikeway is going to receive environmental clearance, no bikeway design plans being drawn up.  2011 was a great year for the Expo Light rail project, maybe 2012 will be a great one for the bikeway.

Near this Culver City entrance, the Ballona Creek Bike Path is pretty isolated, but other parts of the path run close enough to other streets that cyclists could be forced onto this path, regardless of the time of day. Photo: mo mo foto/flickr

Senator Barbara Boxer is receiving bi-partisan praise for managing to move a transportation policy and funding bill through the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee in a divided Senate, but she may be facing trouble from a usually supportive constituency back home.

Regardless of how one feels about the new funding formulas proposed in the bill, there is no doubt that a provision in the MAP-21 highway authorization bill entitled “bicycle safety” would dramatically change cyclists’ rights to the road and would force many cyclists to either break the law or put themselves in unsafe situations.  The language in question reads:

BICYCLE SAFETY.—The Secretary of the appropriate Federal land management agency shall prohibit the use of bicycles on each federally owned road that has a speed limit of 30 miles per hour or greater and an adjacent paved path for use by bicycles within 100 yards of the road.

“The provision requires no minimum standard of safety or mobility on the sidepath, and experience shows that such paths are often more dangerous or impractical than on-road bicycling,” explains David Snyder, the executive director of the California Bicycle Coalition.  ”The provision may have been well-intentioned but its result is to reduce safety and it should be removed.”

Jim Baross, with the California Association of Bicycle Organizations explains further.  ”Most of our concern is that adjacent trails, paths or alternative facilities that bicycling might be detoured to do not provide anything near to the efficiency and safety provided by the shoulders of Federal highways,” Baross begins. “At a time when there are significant and important efforts to encourage Americans to use bicycling as a healthy, environmentally appropriate and economic transportation choice, it is ironic that a proposal for prohibiting bicycling, such as this, would be included in a transportation bill.”

The real-world implications of such a change would be felt throughout the state, but Bikeside President Alex Thompson explains some of the local impact.  After first noting that this law would require a lot of municipalities to get out their measuring tape and that it would effectively ban bikes from the Pacific Coast Highway in Santa Monica, Thompson notes many of the other implementation problems with the language as written.

“Are their places where Dockweiler is within 100 yards of Vista Del Mar but only for 1/4 mile?  If there are, then you would have to switch over and back all the time,”  Thomspon begins.  ”And there’s the issue of how you tell cyclists that they have to getoff the road, turn, right, proceed past two apartment buildings, and join the secret hidden bike path you didn’t know about. It’s chock full of holes as written.”

With more and more people taking to the streets of Los Angeles on two wheels, the long-simmering debate over whether or not cyclists should be allowed to ride on the sidewalk is re-emerging.  The State of California Vehicle Code (CVC) bans sidewalk riding unless a municipality adopts an ordinance allowing sidewalk riding.  Los Angeles Municipal Code (LAMC) 56.15 allows cyclists on sidewalks unless they’re riding dangerously or other meet other specific criteria, such as having a bike side-car.

Councilman LaBonge has long been a critic of laws allowing cyclists to ride on the sidewalk. Here he poses with cyclists before his office's "Positively 4th Street" bike ride in 2008. Photo: Tom LaBonge.com

A new report by the Los Angeles Department of Transportation reccomends that the city revise LAMC 56.15 to clarify what types of cycling are so dangerous that it should be banned from the sidewalk.  The LADOT report notes that cycling is on the rise and that the city network is not built out to the point where novice cyclists can feel safe on every street.  For these reasons, LADOT does not recommend discontinuing sidewalk riding.

Currently, the LAMC reads:

1. No person shall ride, operate or use a bicycle, unicycle, skateboard, cart, wagon, wheelchair, rollers kates, or any other device moved exclusively by human power, on a sidewalk, bikeway or boardwalk in a willful or wanton disregard for the safety of persons or property. (Amended by Ord. No. 166,189, Eft. 10/7/90.

Confusion over what is and isn’t “willful or wanton disregard” that has created confusion.  Over the years we’ve heard stories of police ticketing people for riding on the sidewalk if there are any pedestrians present, which seems an awfully broad definition.  Of course, we’ve also heard stories of police ticketing cyclists just for riding on the sidewalk because they are unaware that in the City of Los Angeles, and other major cities, such an activity is legal.

But to make sidewalk riding as safe as possible, LADOT lists several things that need to be further examined.

• Must provide the right of way to all pedestrians and slow to a walking pace of not more than 3 miles per hour;
• Provide an audible signal – vocal or mechanical- to pedestrians to alert them to their presence;
• Slow to a walking pace at driveways; and
• Slow to a walking pace when entering an intersection;
• Reestablish provisions for banning bicycles from sidewalks in business districts or heavity (sic) congested pedestrian corridors.

The most recent effort to alter LAMC 56.15 came in the June of 2009.  Councilman Tom LaBonge has long been a critic of sidewalk riding.  On the same morning as a Lakers Championship Parade, the City Council Transportation Committee met for an “all-bike” meeting that included a discussion of sidewalk riding.  The Councilman proposed making it illegal for cyclists to pass pedestrians without calling out or ringing a bell.  The motion didn’t have much traction and was widely panned by cyclists in attendance, but LaBonge’s proposal is one of several strategies that LADOT is considering in their current report.

We’ll stay on top of this issue.  If you have strong feelings on whether or not sidewalk riding should be allowed and under what conditions it is understandable, leave them in the comments section.  I’ve already made my confessions.

This photo is looking west on Zoo Drive from Riverside Drive. If the City follows through on the proposed closure for west-bound road users, these cyclists will not be able to ride as pictured. Photo: Colin Bogart/LACBC

Visitors to Griffith Park over the last year have noted that there is some major construction going on near the Silver Lake Resevoir.  In order to protect Angelenos from any future plans to poison the water, the federal government is ordering that all open air resevoirs be taken offline and replaced with below ground ones.  That edict is creating constrcution projects in parks across the country, but in in Griffith Park it might alwo seal off parts of the park to bicyclists.

The city’s Department of Water and Power is currently working in Griffith Park to create a new underground reservoir so they can take the Silver Lake reservoir off-line. Roughly one year from now, DWP will be working in the northern tip of Griffith Park. That work will result in the partial closure of Zoo Drive from Riverside Drive to the west entrance at Forest Lawn.

During construction, which could last for at least a year, the street will be kept open for cars and other road users traveling eastbound into the park from Forest Lawn. However, cyclists will face a longer and more inconvenient route traveling west.

Westbound motorists, cyclists, and other road users will not be allowed to proceed past the intersection of Zoo Drive and Riverside Drive. Any motorist or cyclist traveling in the park westbound from the Zoo/Autry area will be forced to detour out of the park and across the 134 Freeway on Riverside Drive. Many cyclists use the stretch of road in Griffith Park from the intersection of Zoo Drive and Riverside to the west park entrance near Travel Town.

Instead of forcing a detour for west-bound cyclists, one solution that could ensure two-way access for cyclists and other park users (joggers, walkers, etc.) without requiring a significant detour for motorists AND maintaining motorist access to the Zoo and the Autry. Zoo Drive could be completely closed to cars and left open for cyclists, pedestrians, and joggers as though it were a multi-use path (or a street closure a la CicLAvia or like the weekend street closures in Golden Gate Park in SF.)  It certainly wouldn’t be the first time a park opened up some street space for bicycle and pedestrian usage.

Here's the intersection of Zoo Drive and Riverside Drive, looking north at Riverside as it goes over the 134 Freeway. You can see the eastbound freeway exit in the foreground and the on-ramp westbound in the distance. Photo: Colin Bogart/LACBC

Motorists could easily detour onto the 134 freeway in both directions. There are entrances and exits at Riverside Drive and at Forest Lawn Drive. Motorists traveling west-bound can easily get on the freeway, go to the next exit at Forest Lawn and get off. This will enable access to Travel Town, Forest Lawn Cemetery, or enable continued travel towards Warner Brothers studio parking and Barham Blvd.  

Eastbound motorists who currently use Zoo Drive could get on the 134 freeway at Forest Lawn, go to the next exit at Riverside and get off the freeway again. This “detour” would take roughly one minute and allows motor vehicle access to the Zoo and the Autry. If the road is closed for all westbound road users, the detour for west-bound cyclists is significant, plus it effectively closes a large part of the park to members of the bicycling community.

This solution was first publicly proposed by the Los Angeles County Bicycle Coalition at a recent meeting of the city’s official Bicycle Advisory Committee and received a warm welcome from the Committee Members and staff.  However, city staff won’t proceed with the proposal presented by the LACBC to the BAC without the approval of the local elected leader who has not given the okay.

Griffith Park falls in the Fourth City Council District, represented by Councilman Tom LaBonge.  LaBonge is a champion of an open Griffith Park, but hasn’t announced a position on the Zoo Drive proposal.  The Councilman’s Office declined to comment for this story.

While the proposed changes won’t happen for about a year, the transportation plans are being created now. During early construction of the underground reservoir, cyclists have been accommodated for over a year now. Special bike lanes were striped from near the entrance at Los Feliz and a temporary multi-use path was created parallel to Crystal Springs Drive between Park Center and the Zoo Parking lot.

While Streetsblog appreciates these efforts, it’s more important to provide long-term solutions than short-term ones.  The solution to keep Zoo Drive open for 2-way access for cyclists, pedestrians, and joggers on Zoo Drive seems so simple and yet still seems a proposal that is too far away.

Existing Los Angeles River bike path in Elysian Valley. Photo: Joe Linton

Today’s Los Angeles City Council Transportation Committee meeting includes action on the Transportation Department’s (LADOT’s) proposal to seek $13million in federal funding for extending the Los Angeles River bikeway. The federal funding sought is part of a federal funding opportunity called Transportation Investment Generating Economic Recovery (TIGER), a stimulus funding that encourages innovative and sustainable transportation.

While LADOT’s proposal, detailed at Council File 11-1781, is expected to sail through committee and council approval, it still needs to compete with other municipalities seeking limited TIGER dollars. Overall the city is asking the federal money to cover $13M of an $18M project. The city application is due October 31st 2011, and grantees are expected to be notified in January 2012. If awarded, construction is targeted to begin in 2013.

The L.A. River runs about 50 miles from Canoga Park in the West San Fernando Valley to the Pacific Ocean in Long Beach. About 32 miles of the river are in the city of Los Angeles. Of those 32 L.A. City miles, there’s an existing bike path for 8 miles in Northeast Los Angeles and an additional 2 miles currently under construction in the West Valley. That adds up to 10 miles complete, and 22 to go.

Bike path construction costs easily about one million dollars per mile, plus additional costs for grade separation, especially going under or over bridges. Grade crossings are especially difficult in east San Fernando Valley communities, including Studio City and Sherman Oaks, where vertical channel walls and low bridges require expensive under-crossings to create a continuous, uninterrupted path.  In Downtown Los Angeles, railroad infrastructure parallel to the river makes river access difficult and costly. With all these challenges, and only an $18M project budget, there isn’t quite enough to complete the remaining 22 miles for a continuous 32-mile bike path.

LADOT has smartly opted for an initial hybrid solution. The TIGER funding will create a continuous 32-mile bikeway, comprised of bike paths, bike lanes, and bike routes. The grant will build approximately five miles of off-street bike path and that will be complemented by about 20 miles of on-street routes and lanes. River path mileage will all be in the San Fernando Valley, with on-street facilities in the Valley and in Downtown Los Angeles.

Connecting with the existing 17-mile L.A. River bike paths downstream, extending from the city of Vernon to the city of Long Beach, the TIGER L.A. River bikeway project will result in a 50+mile-long L.A. River corridor bikeway, with a mix of paths and streets. As funding permits, additional segments of off-street bike path can be added over time.

For additional information on the city’s river bikeway TIGER application, see coverage at KCET and LADOT. See also ongoing L.A. River coverage by this author at L.A. Creek Freak.

ABC 7 has a pretty lousy reputation with many members of the bicycling community because of its reporting that seemed to blame the victims of the Christine Dahab/K-Town Ridazz crash because an LAPD officer found an unknown quantity of condoms somewhere near the crash site, but a review of the stories they’ve done on bicycling is actually pretty positive.  In the past month, they’ve run stories on CicLAvia, the L.A. County Bike Plan, Bike Station and the city’s proposed Bike Parking Ordinance.

Despite the attention grabbing headline, the piece is actually pretty reasonable with one glaring problem.  The reporter even found time to talk to a cyclist who used the lane in question and in a piece about how a private business lost two street parking spaces it manages to show the long parking lot attached to the business.

Watch the video embedded above, and then we have some analysis after the jump.

I feel for the store owner in the video, I do.  It must be bewildering to lose on-street parking right in front of your store with no notice.  If the loss is hurting his business that’s awful.  If CicLAvia can put door hangers on thousands of doors before each event, LADOT should be able to do the same in a smaller area before a road re-configuring.

So what was the LADOT’s outreach on this project?  Turns out that all you had to do to find out why the LADOT did something was to ASK THE LADOT and not ambush the mayor between meetings.  A department spokesperson writes the following:

LADOT installed the bicycle lane consistent with the 2010 Bicycle Plan adopted by the City Council and Mayor.

The plan clearly identified that this segment of Sheldon Street was designated for a bicycle lane.

It is a continuation of a previously installed bike lane segment.

Potential removal of parking also is identified in the plan.

The decision to remove on-street parking on one side of the street was based on an engineering assessment of the safest way to install the bike lane while minimizing impacts on the whole street.

So…they didn’t even notify the Neighborhood Council sometime before the striping went down?

Yikes.

A little deeper digging reveals that this street recently received a repaving from the Bureau of Street Services.  When they re-striped the street, LADOT asked them to add bike lanes in accordance with the 2010 Bike Plan.  While that certainly makes sense from an engineering standpoint there has to be a way that we can have bicycle projects and public outreach.  There has to be some way to make the Bureau of Street Services and LADOT sit down at a table with a list of streets up for repaving six months ahead of time so some sort of public notice can happen.  And there has to be some way for an angry store owner to here about a project ahead of time.  Didn’t the city learn anything from the Wilbur Avenue fiasco?

When I first saw the promotion for this story, I called Bruce Gillman, the press contact for LADOT, to find out what was going on.  He had no idea what I walk talking about.  Neither did bikeways.  In fact, the two of us traded emails guessing what lanes they were talking about  and decided it was probably the Expo Bike Lanes in West Adams.  ABC didn’t call LADOT to ask any questions.  If they were trying to do a sneaky parody of how not to give any notice, well done!  If they were trying to do an in-depth piece of journalism…

The problem with this kind of reporting, and what we’ve seen at LA Weekly in its blog section, is that it creates an impression that the city is bending over backwards to do everything cyclists want them to do at the expense of everyone else.  It’s not.  The city is certainly doing better than 2008, but it’s hardly moving mountains.  To prove my point, just look at the bike lane in this story.

You know what’s bugging me?  Bike lanes that are at least 30% in the gutter (or if this lane isn’t in the gutter it’s an awfully small bike lane, hard to tell without seeing the full lane markings) on roads that manage to have space for five lanes of car traffic.  Would this lane pass muster in Long Beach, New York or Portland?  Probably not, and that’s “bugging me” as much as anything else.

Photo: Barleye

The LAPD officers responsible for the blocked Bike Lane pictured above are going to have a hard time explaining why they were out shopping on Sunset Blvd. instead of protecting and serving, but as for the illegal parking job, it’s not their fault. They merely need to plead ignorance and then point to the DMV.

After all, the DMV’s “Wilco Tango Foxtrot” interpretation of the California Vehicle Code specifies “You may park in a bicycle lane if your vehicle does not block a bicyclist and/or there is not a “No Parking” sign posted.”

From the top down, the State of California and the City of Los Angeles need to get together and embark on an education program directed at those in charge, those responsible for operating this state and this city.

Between the DMV’s car-centric creative interpretation of the law and the CHP’s complete ignorance of the rules of the road as they apply to pedestrians and cyclists, it is apparent that the real opportunity to make our streets safer for everybody is to start with those in power.

Last year, the LAPD developed a Bicycle Awareness training program for its officers that firmly established the rights of cyclists on the streets and replaced “ride to the right” with “ride where it’s right” as the principle for lane positioning.

Bike Activists were given the opportunity to participate in the development of the program and the Cyclist/LAPD Task Force was optimistic that the Bicycle Awareness training would have a significant impact on the streets, turning LAPD officers into partners, not adversaries.

Unfortunately, the mandate to participate in the training program was not as significant as the promises made to the cycling community and it is now easier to find officers who have never heard of the program than it is to find officers who have participated and who understand the concepts.

Just last week, a LAPD Supervisor responsible for special events went into a tirade over “cyclists who impede traffic by taking up the whole lane” and “cyclists who ride side by side.” The street that he was referring to, San Fernando Road, has two lanes in both directions with a left turn pocket in the center. This LAPD Supervisor needs to engage in some Bike Awareness training before he spreads any more mis-information about cyclists and “impeded traffic.”

Photo: Stephen Box

photo by victim of Metro Bus Operator

LA County’s Metro is the largest operator of buses in the region and it still has a training manual that instructs its operators to sound the horn for “cyclists and other road hazards.”The Metro’s Chairman of the Board is LA’s Mayor Villaraigosa and LA controls three other seats which are filled by City Councilman José Huizar, Richard Katz, and Mel Wilson. In other words, the City of LA has a tremendous impact on the operation of the Metro and a tremendous responsibility for its performance.

Perhaps its time to share the LAPD’s Bicycle Awareness program with the Metro!

Photo: Daily News

LA’s Department of Water & Power moves a lot of equipment through the streets of Los Angeles, relying on a combination of staff and contractors to operate its fleet of trucks.The incident pictured above is still being debated by LA’s policy makers and City Attorney, resulting in a clear demonstration of the need for greater education and an understanding of the rules of the road. Are crosswalks an extension of the sidewalk? If so, can cyclists ride in the crosswalk? If not, how do we explain the Orange Line Bike Path?

Through it all, once the debate is put aside, the important thing to remember is that the City of LA operates huge pieces of equipment on local neighborhood streets that are surrounded with homes, populated with families, and filled with pedestrians and cyclists who have as much right to the streets as the professional vehicle operators moving the City of LA’s equipment.

Photo: Stephen Box

LA is a company town and our neighborhoods are Hollywood’s backlot. That’s one of the things that makes LA such a magical city.But the people who issue film permits don’t seem to realize that a Bike Lane is a traffic lane, that it is not simply an extension of the parking lane. Most importantly, Trucks that are 8’6” wide don’t fit into a parking lane that is 7’ wide.

The City of LA issues film permits and retired LAPD officers in uniform provide traffic control for the film shoots begging the question, “Who is responsible for their training and education?”

The film shoot pictured above should have lane closure and traffic control so that cyclists riding downhill on Sunset get the same respect that motorists would get if the lane ahead were closed.

Photo: Stephen Box

Some of the greatest threats to a cyclist have nothing to do with the operators of large vehicles and everything to do with those responsible for repairs and maintenance.Detours that appear with no warning, manhole covers that aren’t flush with the surface of the street, cracks between asphalt and cement bus pads, gutter pans that aren’t flush, poorly positioned water mains, divets from special event equipment, and drain grates that run parallel to the curb are all deadly road hazards for cyclists.

For all the promise of Eurotopian Bikeway engineering, the real opportunity to engineer our streets for cyclists is to start by educating those responsible for maintenance and repair of our streets on the needs of cyclists and on the difference between a Hummer and a Huffy.
Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa has embraced cycling as a viable mode of transportation and has committed to supporting cyclists with the full force of his Mayoral authority, directing City of LA department heads to partner with him in making LA a Bike Friendly city.

If he is serious about his commitment, he’ll make Bike Education a priority and he’ll start by educating the City Family on Bicycle Awareness, from the LAPD to the DWP to the LADOT.

Imagine 40,000 City of LA employees going about their business with a new sensitivity to how streets work, to the rights of cyclists, to the repair, and maintenance of streets so that they are safe for everybody.

For all the talk of “40 miles a year” of Bikeways improvement and millions of dollars in Measure R money, the real opportunity to move LA forward immediately is to embrace Bike Education, for cyclists, for motorists, for the LAPD, for the engineers, for the policy makers and the pothole fillers, so that the people who use the streets understand how to integrate cyclists into the traffic mix.

• 

  Bicycle Rodeos are a great start, but cyclists (and drivers) need continual education for everyone's sake. This rodeo picture from Glendale last May and via the Los Angeles County Bicycle Coalition

  Unfortunately, most of this experience only teaches us how to use our streets as motorists. Those who roll out of their driveways for the first time on two wheels confront a host of issues they never considered previously:

• How do I turn left at this daunting intersection?
• Why do some motorists try to pass just before stop signs?
• How can I discourage motorists from passing too closely in the same lane?
• And so many more.

The problem is the lack of accessible, informed and comprehensive education regarding the rights and responsibilities of bicyclists. Few of us receive adequate instruction before getting behind the handlebars or the steering wheel and navigating the streets of Los Angeles. Schools rarely offer bicycling courses by certified instructors. Those who teach drivers’ education courses only briefly refer to bicyclists, instead of informing students of bicyclists’equal right to use the road.

To complicate matters, the minimal bicycle education we do receive is often erroneous — especially when it comes from friends and authority figures who lack training and personal experience on a bicycle. Parents, teachers and police officers are wise to teach children to wear helmets, use lights at night, stop at red lights and look “left, right, left” before crossing a street. But counseling a bicyclist to “stay on the sidewalk” or “stay as far to the right as possible” is misguided. Door zones and blind spots are paved with good intentions.

Our first step must be to educate our youth. Because they are eager to learn, children are excellent candidates to learn bicycling basics. Friends, siblings and parents can usually teach steering and braking on their own. But beyond this, the help of a trained bicycle instructor is invaluable.

A bicycle “rodeo” is an effective and engaging way to educate young people. At a rodeo, a certified instructor assists children as they fit helmets, learn hand signals, navigate traffic-cone courses and practice balancing through figure-eights. Any community center that regularly hosts groups of children, such as a school, church, synagogue or youth sports league, can readily organize a rodeo.

When not reinforced on a regular basis, even basic skills can be forgotten quickly. Therefore, it is important that those who are new to bicycling continue to review the basics they’ve learned, such as the importance of obeying traffic signals, traveling on the right side of the road and using helmets and lights.

• Additionally, bicyclists should know the importance of:
• Planning routes to avoid unsafe stretches of road
• Using hand signals
• Taking the lane to discourage unsafe passing
• Making a “box turn” by using crosswalks to turn left at difficult intersections
• Maintaining predictable lane position

As I encounter too often in my practice, even the most prudent bicyclists may be threatened or injured by motorists who do not respect bicyclists’ equal right to the road. After all, helmets cannot shield us from the indignity inflicted by an irate driver’s honking, and hand signals cannot compel an aggressive motorist to yield the right-of-way.

So, effective bicycle education must also include measures to inform motorists of their responsibility to share the road with bicyclists. This means more than a multiple-choice question on an exam. It means additional public outreach, more sharrows painted on streets, and publicized traffic enforcement operations targeting drivers who park in or obstruct bicycle lanes.

In particular, these methods should aim to remind motorists of a couple key points:

• “Taking the lane” is a bicyclist’s way of signaling that the lane is too narrow for a motorist to try to squeeze past. Change lanes to safely pass.
• Bicyclists often travel faster than motorists expect. Exercise great caution before turning into a bicyclist’s path. Do not attempt to pass a bicyclist when approaching stop signs or red lights, or when preparing to turn right.

When motorists and bicyclists disregard their rights and responsibilities, safety and civility on our roads suffer. Proper education, widely accessible to those on two wheels and four, can help everyone understand the needs of other road users.

(The law firm of Gordon, Edelstein, Krepack, Grant, Felton & Goldstein, LLP is dedicated to protecting the rights of those who have suffered serious injuries on or off the job. Partner Howard Krepack, an avid bicyclist, leads the firm’s bicycle accident practice. For more information about our firm, call us at 213-739-7000 or visit our website: www.geklaw.com.)

The Beach Bike Path is one of the most famous existing L.A. County bike facilities. Photo:Biking in L.A.

It’s been awhile since Los Angeles County has taken a serioous look at bikeways and bike planning.  The newly completed Bike Master Plan (BMP) for L.A. County Working will replace the County’s 1975 Plan of Bikeways.  By my count, that’s 37 years of working off the same plan.  You could say that a lot has changed since 1975, or I could just say that I wasn’t born yet when the plan was passed.

And I’m no Spring Chicken.

The new BMP proposes a much expanded network on county controlled land including unincorporated areas such as Marina del Rey and the land along various rivers, creeks, and flood control facilities.  While advocates are just beginning to delve into the plan, previous versions have come under heavy scrutiny for being too vague in areas and not proposing enough bicycle lanes, bicycle boulevards (still called bike friendly streets for some reason), and Sharrowed Streets.  Another complaint was that the plan assumes car travel lane widths of 12 feet in many areas instead of exploring shrinking the lanes to make more space for cyclists.

While advocates are combing through the Final Plan, the Los Angeles County Bike Coalitions is hoping people will take the time to comment on the environmental documents to County staff and to the L.A. County Supervisors.

” The big thing is just making sure folks, specially folks in unincorporated communities, know that the plan is out there and they should comment and contact the Planning Commission and County Supervisors about the bad and good of the plan,” wrote Alexis Lantz, the Policy and Planning Director for the Los Angeles County Bicycle Coalition.

The County has scheduled a November 16 public hearing on the plan.  To get details on the plan, how to comment, or the public hearing, visit the County’s website by clicking here.  When L.A. County completes its 2035 County General Plan, which will guide development and spending for the next 23 years, will include this plan.  We’ve also got a full list of plan chapters with the relevant links after the jump.

Environmental Impact Review

• Draft PEIR (Complete)
• Executive Summary
• Chapter 1 – Introduction
• Chapter 2 – Project Description
• Chapter 3 – Environmental Analysis
• Chapter 3.1 – Aesthetics-Visual Resources
• Chapter 3.2 – Biological Resources
• Chapter 3.3 – Hydrology/Water Quality
• Chapter 3.4 – Cultural Resources
• Chapter 3.5 – Hazards/Hazardous Materials
• Chapter 3.6 – Traffic and Transportation
• Chapter 3.7 – Air Quality/Greenhouse Gas Emissions
• Chapter 3.8 – Mineral Resources
• Chapter 4 – Effects Determined Not To Be Significant
• Chapter 5 – Alternatives
• Chapter 6 – Growth Inducement
• Chapter 7 – Significant Irreversible Changes
• Chapter 8 – List of Preparers
• Chapter 9 – References
• Appendix A – Notice of Preparation and Initial Study
• Appendix B – Scoping Report
• Appendix C – Listed Species in the County of Los Angeles

Supporting vague driving standards that endanger California’s cyclists is no longer a partisan issue.  S.B. 910, which would have mandated a three foot passing cushion when drivers pass cyclists at speeds over 15 miles per hour was universally supported by Democrats in the Assembly and Senate. But that didn’t stop Governor Jerry Brown from vetoing S.B. 910 because he was worried that mandating that drivers slow down to fifteen miles per hour before passing a cyclist or asking them to pass at at least a three foot distance would create either rear-end collisions or long lines of traffic.

Advocates of safe driving laws pointed out that in the 20 states that have similar laws, there has not been one case cited where a crash was caused by a motorist adhering to the law.  But that wasn’t good enough for Brown, which isn’t surprising since his veto statement also implies that its more important to keep motor vehicle traffic moving than it is to protect the safety of cyclists.

Senator Alan Lowenthal (D-Long Beach) was similarly confused by the Governor’s veto and the incoherent logic behind it.

Obviously I am disappointed with the veto, but I am also a bit confused. It appears the Governor’s biggest concern with the bill revolved around the 15 MPH provision. However, that provision actually made it easier for a  motorist to pass a cyclist and allowed for a much smoother flow of traffic. The Governor seems to be advocating for a strict, minimum three foot buffer in which a motorist cannot pass, under any circumstances unless that pass can be made with at least three feet between the motorist and the cyclist. I agree that that would be safer for the cyclist, but it would not, in any way address the concerns the Governor raised in the veto.

The California Bike Coalition, who had championed the law from drafting through passage, was equally blunt.  Jim Brown, the Coalition’s Communications Director, writes,

The Governor had that chance to take the bold step of giving California drivers clearer guidance on how to share the road with bicyclists, with all the benefits that come from enabling more Californians to safely choose bicycling as everday transportation. Instead, he showed that he doesn’t fully understand why existing law is so inadequate and what this bill would do. As a result, drivers will continue guessing about how to much clearance to give bicyclists and those who get it wrong will continue injuring and killing bicyclists.

Another prominent backer of the legislation, Los Angeles Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa also issued a statement critical of the Governor’s decision.

I am very disappointed that this practical and prudent legislation was vetoed today by the Governor. By bringing much-need clarity to California’s Vehicle Code, the Three Foot Passing Law would have defined the proper code of conduct as well as the rights and responsibilities of all motorists and bicyclists. Despite this setback, I along with Lance Armstrong and the entire cycling community remain committed to ensuring the safety of everyone traveling on our roads and highways each and everyday.

So the Governor of California listened to the California Highway Patrol and vetoed a crucial piece of bike safety legislation.  It’s too bad that he doesn’t read Streetsblog of he would know that the California Highway Patrol doesn’t understand basic bike safety laws already on the books, to say nothing of the agency’s understanding of proposed legislation.

Its difficult to create a safe mid-block pedestrian crossing, but there is always something you can do to make aModel Street Design Manual crossing safer. All images in this story come from

Over the past few months, we’ve checked in on the efforts of five communities in Los Angeles County to create more livable, walkable, bikeable and healthier communities through better transportation planning through the Los Angeles PLACE Grants.  However, Los Angeles County is home to 11 million residents, and less than 750,000 live in PLACE communities.

But that doesn’t mean that the LA County Public Health Department (LACDPH) doesn’t have a plan for the rest of the county.  Partnering with the UCLA Luskin Center for Innovation, LACDPH awarded a RENEW Grant to create a “Model Street Manual” to help the rest of the county, and anyone else who was interested, begin to think of their streets in a different way.

“It’s time we started designing our streets for people and quality neighborhoods instead of just cars,” explains super-planner Ryan Snyder, the lead consultant for the plan. “We hope the street manual will change the way cities here and across the US design their streets. The manual should be real a game changer.”

The manual starts with an explanation of the difference between traffic control devices, the application of which is controlled by the state, and traffic calming which isn’t.  The state’s Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices biases streets towards moving traffic makes installing traffic control devices a difficult undertaking.  Making a difference between traffic calming and traffic control is an important legal distinction, because if a municipality deviates from state rules, it could be found at fault in traffic crashes.

For example, stop signs, traffic signals, and flashing beacons are expected to meet minimum thresholds before application. These thresholds include such criteria as number of vehicles, number of pedestrians or other uses, distance to other devices, crash history, and more.

Traffic calming, such as speed humps and bump outs, don’t fall under the same restrictions.  Thus, municipalities are encouraged to adopt a strategy of slowing traffic to increase street safety as one of many practices to make streets safer for all users.

The manual also lists the benefits of adopting a true “complete streets” ideal when completing road projects.  The benefits are many, and this list is probably familiar to many Streetsblog readers, but seeing the list together creates a striking picture.

• The goals of designing living streets are to
• Serve the land uses that are adjacent to the street; mobility is a means, not an end
• Encourage people to travel by walking, bicycling, and transit, and to drive less
• Provide transportation options for people of all ages, physical abilities, and income levels
• Enhance the safety and security of streets, from both a traffic and personal perspective
• Improve peoples’ health
• Create livable neighborhoods
• Reduce the total amount of paved area
• Reduce streetwater runoff into watersheds
• Maximize infiltration and reuse of stormwater
• Reduce greenhouse gas emissions and other air pollution
• Reduce energy consumption
• Promote the economic well-being of both businesses and residents
• Increase civic space and encourage human interaction

While the manual doesn’t give a list of the potential negative impacts of promoting living streets, we’ve prepared a list for comparison purposes.

• People driving cars will find it more difficult to drive dangerously

So how do we get from a traditional street design to one that emphasizes the first list of benefits over automobile speed?

It would take forever to go through all of the individual treatments available to municipalities, but the basics aren’t going to surprise any regular Streetsblog reader.

Sidewalk design in a dense residential area.

One of the main keys, of perhaps greater importance than bike lanes or large sidewalks, is the quality of the road intersections.  A disproportionately large amount of crashes occur at intersections and the design of the intersection can also lead to dangerous intersections throughout the street.  For example, many community activists point to a lack of stop signs and stop lights as the main reason a community is unsafe, but in many intersections, there are better options.  For example, traffic circles (aka roundabouts) is a superior treatment at many residential and other intersections.

Of course, providing a safe way for people to cross at an intersection is also paramount to creating safe streets, crosswalks, bike and pedestrian countdown timers, wayfaring signage and bike boxes (painted areas that give bikes priority at intersections) are all different treatments that provide a safer way for people to mix with cars in addition to a traditional crosswalk and pedestrian light.

Of course, the manual addresses Pedestrian Crossings, Bikeway Design, and Transit Accommodations as important components of creating a complete street.  A series of treatments are proposed that takes space currently dedicated to moving cars to moving people.  Bus bulb outs make it easier to get on the bus and reduces traffic speed in areas where pedestrians and cars mix.  Separated bike lanes gives bicycles their own space on the street.  Sometimes, the most impressive designs are the most basic.  The manual also gives sidewalk design guidelines for areas with different uses and densities, covering everything from office parks, to main street, to a suburban residential area.

My favorite chapter is on “Streetscape Ecosystem.”  A truly Livable Street is all about multiple uses in the public space.  I love the parts about creating furniture, waste cans, public art and shopping areas, the text about storm water runoff and rain water management is equally important.  After all, a Livable Street is a Green Street.

Last but not least is the density and land uses that surround the street.  Just as its important to build a street to match the existing development, its important to plan development to match a street.

Snyder describes the manual as a “game changer,” but its also a challenge.  No longer do communities have the excuse of not understanding smart growth principles or the claim that its “impossible” to change a street’s DNA.    The manual and its team have created a public framework for anyone to use.  The challenge to urban planners and transportation engineers everywhere is whether or not they have the courage to.

(Full Disclaimer: Two of the contributors to the manual, Deborah Murphy and James Rojas, are members of the LA Streetsblog Editorial Board.)

Lance Armstrong and Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa at "Hope Rides Again" Cancer Awareness Event in March, 2009. Photo:SoCalCycling.com

CicLAvia ride buddies Lance Armstrong and Los Angeles Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa have joined forces again.  Their target: Governor Jerry Brown.  Their message: sign S.B. 910, the state’s three foot passing law that would protect cyclists from drivers who pass too close and too fast.

“Gov. Brown can help make our roads safer for everyone by making Senate Bill 910 the law in California,” said Armstrong, seven-time winner of the Tour de France, and the most famous bicyclist in the world.

“I’m thrilled that we have Lance Armstrong’s support on this issue,” added Villaraigosa. “His success is a big reason so many more Californians are interested in bicycling. It’s so important to have experts like him advocating for making California a more bike-friendly place.”

The Senate and Assembly both passed S.B. 910, authored by Long Beach Senator Alan Lowenthal, which would require motorists passing bicyclists to give at least a three foot cushion if the car’s speed is 15 miles per hour. Many Republicans opposed the measure, in large part due to the opposition of speeding traffic advocates, AAA and the California Highway Patrol. Last week, Streetsblog San Francisco reported that those same two groups are lobbying the Governor to veto this traffic safety measure.

Jim Brown, Communications Director for the California Bicycle Coalition, notes that similar, and often times stricter, passing laws in other states have not produced ill effects for drivers or bicyclists as the AAA claimed in their lobbying pieces.

“What Gov. Brown needs to understand is that SB 910 is a reasonable and common-sense measure that’s been road-tested in 20 other states, including Wisconsin, whose 3-foot-passing law was enacted 38 years ago,” Brown explains. “None of these states has experienced unanticipated traffic tie-ups, an increase in collisions or other problems from drivers being unable to give bicyclists enough space. This is a law that simply makes the rules of the road clearer for everyone.”

The California Bicycle Coalition has set up a web page to help supporters contact the Governor’s office. To learn more about their campaign, click here.  Streetsblog will report as soon as we hear word on whether the Governor has signed S.B. 910 into law or vetoed it.