Are Los Angeles bicyclists undermining bicyclists with “freeway” bike plan? Probably.
Share
A few months ago, I posted about a Columbia University lecture on Denmark’s success in make bicycling an integral part of their transportation system. The lecturer’s main point - with which I largely agreed - was that Denmark’s bicycling culture was not purely the result of some sort of organic growth made possible by Copenhagen’s unique culture (although the culture certainly had a role to play). Quite simply, bicycling in Denmark is so popular because of marketing. Without a well-planned campaign, many fewer Dane’s would realize or truly appreciate how safe, efficient, healthy, and cost-effective bicycling is.
Anyway, my only problem with the lecture was that America’s urban bicycling infrastructure is not underdeveloped due to poor marketing. Marketing is certainly an issue, but the major impediment to a wave of bicycling improvements is the uniquely-American legacy of urban sprawl, freeway networks, and the corresponding spatial isolation between points of interest.
It turns out however, that at least a few American bicyclists don’t view these concrete ribbons as impediments. Instead, they want to create their own. The idea was hatched as an alternative to a controversial bicycling plan currently working its way by public officials’ desks.
There is some obvious irony in Los Angeles potentially being the locus for a new approach to urban bicycling networks. But I can’t quite tell if that irony vanishes or doubles in size due to the bicyclists’ desire to lay claim to their own patch of concrete via the same rationale used to construct automotive freeways in the 1950s. ”The city really is more palatable when you have a straight shot through it, with less lights and less stop signs,” said Mihai Peteu, 28, who helped design the map after holding public meetings with cyclists throughout the city. “I think cyclists deserve to have something similar to the freeway system.” You know, I think the irony doubles.
Now, I should clarify what the group, Los Angeles Working Bike Group, is actually proposing. They want to integrate bike lanes - and the corresponding street improvements necessary to create them - on the basin’s primary urban corridors. By adding bike lanes to the major thoroughfares (among them, Wilshire, La Brea, Venice, and Santa Monica Boulevards), bicyclists would be given the most efficient routes possible for traveling throughout the large geographic area that makes up Los Angeles (as currently drafted, the plan focuses most on the northern part of Los Angeles, as well as Hollywood and Santa Monica).
The bicyclists are not opposed to bike lanes on secondary streets, but they are opposed to city-wide plans that attempt to map out neighborhood networks in addition to primary, “backbone” bike lanes.
L.A. Working Bike Group’s plan is unlikely to go very far for a couple reason, however. First, it has been released somewhat late in the process; the public commenting period on the latest draft of the public plan just ended and it is unrealistic to expect the next iteration (coming in February) to include substantial changes. After all the time spent on crafting it thus far, I also think public officials would prefer to limit further changes to refinements - not major changes.
Second, the group’s claim that the public plan is a “mishmash of paths and routes that are unintelligible to the average cyclist” is a bit misplaced. Yes, if one looks at a map of the public plan, the routes look quite “busy.” But that is a good thing! The cartographic clarity the group desires would most likely materialize only if routes were eliminated, thereby reducing the visual clutter (and, naturally, miles of bike lanes). One also can’t forget that the region is geographically large and chock-full of streets and boulevards - many of which do not follow an easy-to-navigate grid layout. That’s not the plan’s fault.
Moreover, the group should be excited that powerful political forces have aligned to produced a “comprehensive” network of bike lanes that are integrated with each other. If the city limited itself to mapping out only major bike lanes, and left individual neighborhoods to come up with their own plans, there would be a real risk of neighborhood plans that are (1) not adequately linked to city-wide bike lanes and thus even more dis-organized and “unintelligible,” (2) diluted by local political interests that are well-placed to undermine such plans at the micro-local level, and worst of all, (3) never implemented at all, due to a lack of micr0-local political will and organization.
At least we can be rest assured that the public plan, warts and all, is not just a vapid exercise, but will actually result in badly needed improvements to the streetscape, right?
[Update: Three excellent comments from BikingLA, Alex Thompson, and T Allen bring up "the flip" side of things and call me out a bit too. Before I respond to each of you, let me note that my critique of the Backbone plan was about the broader issue of primary v. secondary bike lanes - I have not critiqued the plan's details because I think they could generally be integrated in the existing plan without much trouble (e.g., completing an EIR, eliminating the bike route designation system, making a "bikeable streets" declaration, including a Cyclist's Bill of Rights).
BikingLA, my point is not so much that you should accept the current iteration without improvement; instead, my point is that as a practical, political matter, you stand a better chance of having the city adopt some of your ideas if they don't necessitate a complete overhaul of the existing plan. The existing plan is by no means perfect, as many LA bicyclists have pointed out. But these plans rarely are, given all the inevitable compromises made by public officials who try to pacify the many stakeholders involved in plans as ambitious as these are.
T Allen, I completely agree that bad plans are inevitable if they are not the product of people who actually ride bikes. As for the bike freeways, I am not opposed to them per se - but I am nervous about plans that focus on them at the total expense of the neighborhood-level networks, under the assumption that a decent plan for neighborhood lanes will materialize down the road.
Alex, your concern in (1) seems to be a cartographic issue - not a "what is the best way to plan the system" issue. Likewise, I agree that having everything on one map would be messy. That is why I would expect the city to create neighborhood-level "zoomed-in" maps for easier viewing, in addition to the system-wide map. To address your legit concern by separating the planning process seems misplaced for precisely that reason.
As for concerns (2) & (4), my assessment is primarily driven but what the political reality seems to be (and about which, we obviously disagree). Why do I doubt the prospects for implementing the alternative plan? Because, as the many-year planning process has illustrated thus far, city officials have repeatedly been less-than-satisfactory when it comes to responding to the bike community's major gripes with the plans from 1996 onward.
Just because a substantial portion of the bike community is dissatisfied with the current plan doesn't necessarily mean the Backbone plan would be the beneficiary; I suspect (again, looking at the politics, not the plan's merits) that if the city really took concerns to heart, it is more likely to revert back to portions of the less-hated 2007/1996 plan. Yes, the bike community largely supports the Backbone plan - but again, that doesn't mean the city leaders will support it. As their decisions have shown time and time again, they tend to take heed of more than just bicyclists' concerns (often, with worse results).
Finally, your comment number (5). The "powerful political forces" to which I refer are the public officials (that have actual, functional, power to do things) who are inching toward finally coming up with an implementation-ready bike plan. I am not referring to the bike community, because, as you accurately note, it is not exactly a powerful political force. And this is precisely why I think the bike community should be excited (yes, that may not be the right word - how about sanguine?) that city leaders, who have historically been tone-deaf to bicycling issues, are finally coming around.
Perhaps I should clarify that I do not mean you should be excited sanguine about the plans that have materialized since city leaders began the planning process. What I do mean is that there is reason to be optimistic for the mere fact that they are doing something, period. To the extent you and I disagree about this in particular, the disagreement is probably one of mentality.
If you succeed in getting the political will to implement the Backbone plan and neighborhood networks separately, excellent! I am simply nervous that doing so is not as possible as elevating the existing plan (or the 2007/1996 plan) to a point of comparable quality.]
Related Post: Danes ride bikes, so why don’t we (ride bikes too)?
Image courtesy of waltarrrrr.
Where to start?
1) We’re not opposed to mapping out neighborhood networks. However, at 469.1 square miles, mapping both your inter-neighborhood network and your intra-neighborhood networks on one map leads to an incomprehensible mess. Separate the two so we understand each of the two systems.
2) “is unlikely to go very far.” Maybe so, maybe not. Your assessment doesn’t seem to be based on any knowledge of the political particulars of LA, and as such, falls flat.
3) Alta just told the city that they consider their contract fulfilled, and the City can’t afford to hire them for the revision process. Don’t expect a revision anytime soon.
4) If you knew anything about the LA Bike Plan thus far, then you’d know that many advocates feel the proposed plan is worse than the existing, adopted plan. So there could be very real pressure not to adopt the proposal, and hence the window for public acceptance of the Backbone is probably very big.
5) “Moreover, the group should be excited that powerful political forces” -WTF? You really have no idea what you’re talking about. Unless you’re talking about the bike advocates in LA - who universally support the Backbone, and who are not very powerful politically - then I have no idea what you mean by “powerful”.
6) You don’t know what you’re talking about with “lack of micro-local political will”. Way off base.
In short, you really have no basis for a lot of these assertions, and you’re obviously unfamiliar with LA politics, so I think a refresher course is in order.
As a cyclist who has lived my whole life (Over 66 years of it) in Los Angeles, I find your view of the Bicycle Freeway a bit short sighted. It is the same thinking that had a Dolt putting the signal changing switch on a pole that is only accessible to a pedestrian, not someone on a bicycle on the Orange-Line Cycleway. We need more that bicycle Freeways. We need planners who have had their feet on pedals as adults, not those who have not been on anything with wheels since they were on a tricycle as a child.
Incidentally, I prefer to ride on Victory Boulevard across the San Fernando Valley instead of the Orange-Line Cycleway because of the inordinate time it takes to ride the Orange-Line Cycleway with all of the stops. The Cycleway may be fine for a Sunday afternoon jaunt, but to get anywhere on a bicycle in a reasonable period of time, you have to ride with the traffic, and have law enforcement actually enforce the existing laws that protect cyclists.
So what you’re saying is, it’s better to accept a bad plan that is a significant step back from the current bike plan — originally adopted in 1996 — rather than try to come up with something better? No wonder our streets are such a mess.
I’d much rather see what changes the city presents to its plan, then let the City Council decide which plan works better, or whether to combine the two.
I would like to begin by letting you know that I’m here to HULK SMASH, and I plan to HULK SMASH to the benefit of the Backbone. Many others are also HULK SMASHING, and it’s been amazing the kinds of things that HULK SMASHING has recently accomplished. This is likely the missing term from you political calculations.
Here’s the deal on the zoomed in thing. What I get from looking at the maps is that the planning was done “zoomed in.” Meaning, not only are the maps zoomed all the way in, but the plan produced lacks a coherent city wide vision, and gives the impression that a planner was standing over very big map, drawing lines, with no sense for the big picture.
Also, I don’t think anyone is proposing to focus on citywide at the expense of neighborhoods. When it comes to neighborhoods though, now you’re talking a very outreach and labor intensive effort to get supportable plans. That’s a tougher project. We’re starting with the backbone in part because it becomes a vehicle for neighborhood engagement by which we can build a basis for building community supported neighborhood networks. In a word, Neighborhood Councils.
Thanks for the reply, Alex, and point taken re: zooming in/out. You’re also right about HULK SMASHING, I didn’t think of that, but that could actually be quite effective - at least once you get past the liability issue. Hopefully there will be enough neighborhood energy - a critical mass of energy, one might say - to get the Neighborhood Councils off the ground…
[...] Bike Boulevard. Jeremy Grant looks at the Backbone Bikeway Network; I think it’s brilliant, but there are those who don’t. Just days after the Idaho Stop fails in Utah, Arizona takes up the debate. Iowa cyclists push for [...]
The LA Bike Working Group isn’t against bike lanes on residential streets or arterials.
The point of these maps we’ve chosen to release first is part of this Hulk Smashing Alex T. speaks of above. This is what sets our plan apart. We aren’t spineless, we have a BACKBONE. We’re not afraid to ask for what seems out of reach, after all, our friggin’ lives are at stake here. We ride everyday, and I for one, want to feel a bit less intimidated when I ride, wherever I ride.
We wanted to lead with EXACTLY what the LADOT is afraid to do. Take on the car-centric people that everyone is scared of offending. We want to ride the same major routes that cars take across town safely and free of fear. I shouldn’t have to say a little prayer to the gods every time I make it from Santa Monica to Downtown. “Thank you for letting me live another day”. I’m not even religious!!!
@T Allen - Yup, you’re exactly right about the police enforcement. This is why we are getting LAPD on board from the beginning, so they know which routes to patrol most often and look out for cyclist harassment or other motorist actions that could endanger us.
Just another quick note - this is not a comment or suggestion towards the Alta plan, this Backbone Network is part of a separate plan altogether. We have no faith in LADOT and their plan. It’s become clear that those “public officials” don’t represent us when they worry more about offending the car lobby than riders’ safety.
There will be no words like “infeasible” in LA’s Best Bike Plan.
The current plan is a cartographic snowjob, hiding a lack of real connectivity by labelling every street that might be better than nothing a bike way. Little green signs do not make a bike system. For any system to work it must first have interconnected trunk lines. It’s organic logic. Imagine a map of the human body in which capilaries are indistiguishable from arteries. Build the main lines and the neighborhoods will take care of themselves.
This is also an issue of vision and marketing. Would people in cities have moved to the suburbs if they did not see shiny new freeways to travel on? Arterials are the vision; they will advertise the possibility to millions of drivers. They might look out the window of their car and think, “If I lived closer to where I work, I could be biking . . .”
You’re certainly right re: vision/marketing, Alex. As for your first point, I don’t think there is any disagreement about the need for interconnected trunklines, etc. I just think (of course, I may be wrong) that since we also need well-organized neighborhood lanes - that are well-integrated with the trunklines - we may as well try to plan all of them in one fell swoop. Perhaps my optimism that that will produce a decent plan is too much….
Just a few jumbled thoughts…
I think the author underestimates the marketing and political power that is growing from within the cycling community:
1. Major print and radio news outlets are covering the BBN.
2. Neighborhood Councils from all over L.A. have endorsed the Cyclists’ Bill of Rights.
3. LAPD has devoted a Commander to interface directly with cyclists.
4. Neighboring cities like Burbank & Long Beach quickly and efficiently move to implement cycling infrastructure that benefits all road users.
5. A Business District recently endorsed the 4th Street Bike Boulevard.
Just to name a few…
I fail to see how The BBN is probably “undermining” anything, except the frail facade of legitimacy of the city’s proposed bike plan. The city’s plan is not comprehensive. Centers of employment, residence & entertainment are not interlinked. Routes end wherever LADOT decides they are “infeasible”. Mass Transit hubs are not considered. The current plan is perhaps a drawing that shows routes that LADOT considers unimportant and therefore suitable for use by cyclists.
Also, I think the author is hung up on the use of the word “freeway”. What if we called it a “railroad” instead?
I applaud the ASPIRATION and AMBITION of the BBN. The City’s Plan is anything but!
Good points, other Alex - and your optimism about getting the BBN plan implemented seems justified, given your way with words (”frail facade of legitmacy” - excellent). As I sort-of noted in reference to the other comments, my wariness is less about the Bill of Rights, among other elements of the BBN, since they could be added to any of the proposed plans quite easily. Rather the concern is about the BBN’s general approach (just focus on major routes; the little ones will follow via Neighorhood Council efforts). In any event, if you are right about what LADOT’s mentality is, then there is every reason to keep plugging away with the BBN!
[...] city that comes to mind as a bikable city, would spend roughly $230 million (PDF) if the current, embattled iteration of the Los Angeles Biking Plan were fully [...]
[...] Related Posts: (1) Art museums for art’s sake; (2) Now Eli Broad is just playing hard to get; (3) Are Los Angeles bicyclists undermining bicyclists with “freeway” bike plan? Probably. [...]
[...] Bruce Ratner, when it comes to local dealing; (2) Now Eli Broad is just playing hard to get; (3) Are Los Angeles’ bicyclists undermining bicyclists with “freeway” bike plan? Pro…; (4) Wishing there were more “A+D” museums like the one in Los [...]