Today’s Headlines

Screen shot 2010-11-01 at 9.55.07 PM

  • L.B. Police Ruining City’s Bike-Friendly Rep. After Critical Mass Disaster (LAist, LA_Now, Press-Telegram)
  • Public Safety Committee Backs Proposal for “Anti-Harassment” Ordinance for Bikes (Daily Breeze)
  • Bike Plan Goes Before Planning Commission Thursday (LADOT Bike Blog)
  • City Spends a Lot of Time on Potholes without Fixing the Problem (City Watch)
  • How Lime Wire’s Shutdown Effects LASB (It Doesn’t…) (Alt Transport)
  • Fred Camino Was Also at Mobility 21 (The Source)
  • You Know What L.A. Needs?  A (Third) Giant Football Stadium (Daily News)
  • Alpern: On Transpo. R’s Have No Heart, D’s Have No Brain (City Watch)
  • Sarah Goodyear Interviews Angela Glover Blackwell on Transportation and Social Justice (Grist)
  • LAT: “Oil and Tobacco Companies Face Off Against Environmentalists Over Prop 26″
  • Stewart’s Insane Analogy Comparing Americans to Their Cars (Grist)
  • A Battle Over Public Beach Access in the ‘Bu (LAT)

More headlines at Streetsblog Capitol Hill

  • We kinda ended up burying it ourselves with the post about the Planning Commission meeting, but the hard efforts of the Mayor’s Office, CD 4 CM LaBonge’s Office, and the LACBC shouldn’t be missed:
    http://ladotbikeblog.wordpress.com/2010/11/01/scoping-4th-street/
    Additionally, 4th Street becomes much easier to Bicycle Boulevard-ize with the passage of the new bike plan.

  • @LADOT bike blog: It’s not clear to me how the new plan makes 4th Street easier to bike boulevard-ize. (Do the words “bike boulevard” appear in the body of the plan? I don’t think so.) The way I read the plan, it says, for 4th Street the city will do a minimum of 2 treatments: signage and road markings. Seems like there’s nothing in the plan that prevents the city from just checking it off as “done” if the draft plan passes as is.

    I think it’s going to take bicyclist pushing for both 1) a better more committal plan and 2) a robust bike boulevard on 4th.

  • When departments like the Bike Program apply for outside funding on projects, often one of the first criteria is “Is the project in your master plan?”. Both the Technical Design Handbook section on “Bicycle Friendly Streets” (which doesn’t exist in the 1996 plan) and the facilities list (designating 4th Street as a Bicycle Friendly Street) give the LADOT Bike Program the plan framework to justify project applications.

    The Technical Design Handbook for the draft 2010 LA Bike Plan gives the Bike Program a vastly enlarged toolkit to work from compared to the 1996 plan. That, along with the 5 Year Implementation Strategy, are areas in which the new plan is vastly superior to the old one.

    Finally, neither of your last two points are reasons to reject the new plan. I would hope that, no matter what plan is eventually adopted, no one ever presumes to neglect watchdogging the implementation of the plan or pushing for a robust 4th Street treatment.

  • It looks like the LACBC helped broker some changes to the BFS definition that directly address your qualms with the designation:
    http://lacbc.wordpress.com/2010/11/02/bike-plan-update-we-need-your-support-for-the-bike-plan-thurs-morn-city-hall/

  • @LADOT – The LACBC blog you reference states that bike-friendly streets going from one treatment (signage) to two (signage + sharrows) is “a step in the right direction and … we are requesting that Planning and DOT … show further commitment to installing traffic calming measures with all BFS projects.” It’s the same only committing to two treatments that I already referred to… which the LACBC says they’re asking you to go further with.

    Do we really want a network of bike routes (unnecessary, meaningless) where we should have bike boulevards? Are you really comfortable with the bike plan’s lack of commitment to implementing diverters – a feature you praised in your blog? or was that part of the bait and switch, too?

    I want the bike-friendly street network – but I want to see real bike boulevards, not pretty pictures with no implementation.