(Updated 10/24/11 with new link)
We hope everyone had a great time at CicLAvia this past Sunday. For some great pictures and coverage of the event, be sure to check out a couple blog posts we especially liked, at Orange 20 and Metro’s The Source. You can also view some of our pictures from the event here. We also hope that everyone got a chance to check out our sharrows, 7th St.. and 4th St posters along the route. Tell us what you thought of them in the comments section below. Now on to the main event!
Last Tuesday (10/4/11) was the first quarterly format Bicycle Plan Implementation Team (BPIT) meeting. In addition to being longer, BPIT was also housed in a new, bigger, and (as some attendees noted) brighter, more inviting room. The meeting was focused primarily on West L.A. bike lane projects and presentations regarding the five year priorities’ Environmental Package 1. Design proposals for Ave. of the Stars, Westwood Blvd., National Place, Bundry Dr., Centinela Ave., and Overland Ave. were presented. LADOT Bikeways also announced plans for an online facility prioritization survey that will be coming soon, and City Planning gave us a preview of the City’s process for updating the Mobility Element. More on BPIT below the fold.
October BPIT Meeting
BPIT PowerPoint presentation
The West L.A. BPIT presentation is available for download here. Please feel free to download the presentation and review the projects in more detail for yourself. As always, you can also view all previous BPIT power point presentations on our BPIT tab, or by clicking here. The most up to date Draft Environmental Priority 1 list is also up for your viewing pleasure on the BPIT page.
West L.A. Projects
Westside project map
The common theme between most of these projects was the need to either remove parking or a vehicle travel lane in order to accommodate bike lanes. Certain corridors had segments (ie. Sepulveda Blvd.: Venice Blvd. to National Blvd. and National Pl.: Overland Ave. to National Blvd.) that could accommodate bike lanes while maintaining the existing configuration. In these segments, we will be moving forward with bike lane installations.
There were serious concerns about parking removal, especially in largely residential areas along Westwood. Also, with regards to the future Westwood Expo station, BPIT attendees expressed concern over how buses and bikes would interact as bus traffic is expected to increase with the opening of the Expo Line. Finally (leaving the best for last) for Avenue of the Stars, DOT is proposing removing a travel lane in each direction (3 to 2), and installing buffered bike lanes.
EIRs for Select Bike Lane Projects
Proposal for Avenue of the Stars in Century City
City Planning’s Claire Bowen quickly briefed us on progress related to implementing a number of Priority 1 bike lane projects that are expected to have significant auto traffic impacts, thus requiring an official approval process before they can be implemented. The City has recently conducted a request for bids to help write the Environmental Impact Reports needed to help the City’s decision makers (City Councilmembers and the Mayor) weigh the costs and benefits of implementing bikeways on the selected, prioritized streets. The City received four proposals and has already began conducting interviews. A selection should be made within the coming weeks. The City is pursuing a very aggressive timeline. The scope should be ready before the next BPIT meeting in January.
Taking back the Boulevard
Now here’s a welcomed surprise. Paul Habib with CD 14, announced that the Eagle Rock community is openly seeking a road diet for Colorado Blvd. Through their “Take Back the Boulevard Initiative,” residents hope to:
…make this central corridor through Eagle Rock a safe, sustainable, and vibrant street in order to stimulate economic growth, increase public safety, and enhance economic growth, increase public safety, and enhance community pride and wellness.
Unfortunately, removal of a travel lane for this corridor will very likely have a significant impact on auto traffic, triggering the need to conduct environmental review and roadway reclassification, prior to implementation. However, thanks to the BPIT process, these three miles of Colorado Blvd between Lincoln Ave. and the Glendale City limit have now been added to the Priority 1 environmental package. This means that Eagle Rock residents will be able to lobby their elected City leaders for a safer, more sustainable Colorado Blvd. sooner, rather than later. If successful, this project could set a precedent for the region as an example of vehicle travel lane removal to allow for increased safety and mobility for bicycles and pedestrians. Read more about how Colorado Blvd can be transformed further here.
You Decide
BPIT offers a platform for public input into Bike Plan implementation. However, not everyone is able to attend BPIT meetings. To remedy this, interns at the LADOT Bike Program, with input from LACBC and others, have been diligently working on a webpage that will allow anyone with access to the internet to vote on which facilities should be implemented next within the five year implementation plan.
BPIT attendees gave great input to the design of the page and we will be incorporating some of their suggestions. We’ll keep you posted.
Education
The Bike Program provided a bit of information on a few projects it’s working on including a new Public Service Announcement in conjunction with the LACBC and spoke cards that will better inform bicyclists of their rights. BPIT members also discussed some programs they think would be useful in helping to educated the public including a High School bicycle education program, sharrow education, partnerships with youth organizations and hiring a neutral facilitator to help work with neighborhood groups as new bike facilities are developed. DOT engineers also stressed that it is critical for advocates and concerned citizens to attend neighborhood council presentations to help show support for projects.
Multi-Modal LOS
City Planning also gave an update on DOTs efforts to shift to a Multi-Modal LOS. An update to the City’s Transportation Element is being planned, along with a name change to Mobility Element. Public outreach for the project will be conducted in the coming months.
Comments/Concerns
We’d like to know what you all thought of the new format and location. Please leave your comments below to help us improve the BPIT meetings in the future.
Overland very steep between National and Palms, which will make it a fairly unpopular facility. Making the left turn from Overland to National Pl will have bicyclists crossing two lanes of traffic at the top of a hill when speed disparities are at their max. Additionally, many cars are accelerating toward the freeway ramps there at the recently widened bridge. It’s certainly not the route I take – and I go that direction quite frequently.
Motor Ave to the east is practically begging for a road diet and connects to existing bike lanes (and new sharrows). National Pl from Overland to Mentone/Motor is a much more gradual incline. Have you looked at following National to Motor, then doing a road diet to connect to Venice? It’s a more common and topographically-favorable route than what you’ve proposed.
I agree with Eric — that hill on Overland is pretty tough. If you’re not a strong rider, don’t have clip-in pedals, or just aren’t very good at utilizing all your gears to help get you up hills, you’re going to give up halfway up the hill and end up walking your bike. I know this because it’s what happened to the group I rode with from Palms/Culver City to UCLA for Bike to Work/Bike to School Day in April 2010. The Motor –> National Bl. route should be given serious consideration.
I agree with Eric and Niall. Motor Ave is much better suited for a bike lanes vs Overland.. especially due to the recently installed sharrows that reach all way to Pico… (and connect to the proposed Ave of the stars bike lanes.
Additionally, won’t the new Expo Bike way (phase 2) cross National/Motor as well ??? It seems like LADOT’s time and effort would be better spent connecting the future Expo bike path to Venice/and Pico via improved infrastructure on Motor instead of highly trafficked Overland, which not only has a steep hill but multiple freeway on-ramps… One can still cross Overland going up the graduall incline on nations and continue onto bike lanes on National PL without having to make a left, a Niall pointed out early. Don’t get me wrong, I’m definitely in favor of more lanes whenever possible, but shouldn’t we focus on connecting existing lanes/routes instead of adding more roads if unnecessary (ie Overland) ??
I thought the meeting was supposed to discuss intersection design as well, it was on the agenda but none of the designs show possible intersection treatment. Why is this?
Also, if you want to avoid bus/bike conflict look no further than what the Dutch have done– they have solved this problem forever!
http://hembrow.blogspot.com/2011/10/bus-stops-which-dont-cause-problems-for.html
So, why won’t LADOT solve bus/bike conflicts like this? Also, the buffered bike lane should be protected with bollards like the bike lanes in Chicago!
[...] County Model Design Manual for Living Streets is now available online. Notes from last week’s barely announced BPIT meeting that took several cyclists by surprise, myself included. It only takes Damien six months to get new [...]
All of the westside bike lane projects–except for the Ave of the Stars– encourage predominately young male biking to the Expo rail line by way of north/south intersections through it. A mass transit bikeways connection in this area has a very high potential use as the distance to downtown is great enough for many people to choose the biking/rail option, rather than driving on the crowded freeway.
All of the westside bikeways options will look scary to the interested, but concerned bicyclist. Too much motorized traffic that is traveling fast. Without some form of protection from the traffic it will be subjectly dangerous and uncomfortable to ride for most people. The designs are aimed primarily for the young male cyclist. A road diet or narrower lanes would be encouraging more riders as it will slow down traffic. You have to be realistic who the target user is when you have bike lanes next to a lot of fast traffic.
The speed differences between two modes of travel are are a major factor for comfort, whether it’s bikes on sidewalks for pedestrians or cyclists using bike lanes next to motorized traffic. Six foot wide bike lanes on Chandler Blvd are much more comfortable compared to the same width of bike lanes on Fallbrook Ave, due to the differences in the speed of traffic. Bike lanes per se are not uncomfortable for most people, it’s mainly the amount and speed of traffic next to them that makes them uncomfortable.
For the Ave of the Stars, what’s to discourage cars from using the bike lane when it is twelve feet wide, including the six foot buffer?
The new BPIT location felt like people were more on a equal footing, as people were able to sit at a table, as opposed to the previous location which made the table sitters in the middle of the room the more dominate participants.
Someone should make sure to get to the location early to set up a sign outside. It was confusing for me if I had the right location when I arrived and there was no indication if I was at the correct room.
There is so little mass transit on the west side in North-South direction.
I cannot believe you would actually consider Sepulveda Boulevard to be a viable street for preferential treatment for single vehicle occupancy, (which is what a bicycle is) over mass transit buses that use this street.
I ride bicycles and use the bus system, if you slow down bus traffic on Sepulveda that would not be a good thing at all. If anything, Sepulveda should have a dedicated lane for mass transit.
Remember the penny farthing bicycle? I just wrote about my dream bicycle. Check it out http://openbox9.com/2011/10/14/design-your-dream-bicycle/
[...] As Los Angeles is in the process of implementing its Bike Plan, the city holds quarterly meetings to discuss bicycle facilities, which streets to prioritize for bicycle facilities, education, outreach and more. These meetings are called the ‘Bike Plan Implmentation Team’ or BPIT. These meetings are open to the public and the most recent meeting was on October 4th. At this recent meeting Colorado Boulevard was discussed (from LADOT Bike Blog) [...]
BTW, I believe you mean from Lincoln Ave to Pasadena City Limit? Lincoln to Glendale city limit is definitely not 3 miles, probably not even 3 feet
Ok, here are some comments having looked at the power point
1) So for the proposed bike lane on Bundy Drive from San Vicente to Wilshire– where are residents supposed to put their trashcans on trash pick up day? With the parking lane removed people will likely place the trashbins in the bike lane and this is not an acceptable occurrence. How does the city plan on avoiding this conflict? What about: parking at 8′ | s/b advisory bike lane at 7′ | bidirectional car travel in 10′ | n/b advisory bike lane at 7′ | parking at 8′. In this configuration trashbins would be placed along the curb in the parking lane.
Or how about s/b car travel at 10′ | n/b car travel at 10′ | parking at 7′ | buffer at 3′ | bidirectional cycletrack at 10′ ? In this configuration trashbins would be placed along curb of s/b car travel lane and in the parking. This would remove trashbin conflict with bike bicycle facilities. Additionally, this layout maintains all the elements LADOT proposes (2 car lanes, 1 lane of parking and bicycle facility for north and south bound travel)
And as a general question, why do the car lanes have to be 11ft? and the bike lanes a measly 5ft? Such narrow bike lanes are dangerous, especially when placed adjacent to parking.
As for Bundy Dr between Wilshire and Rochester, I’d suggest a similar solution to avoid trashbin conflict and to create a bicycle facility that is safe for EVERYONE, not just the hardcore 1% of cyclists. Creating a bike facility that only serves 1% is a waste of space, a bike facility that functions for all ages is not.
For Bundy Dr. between rochester and Santa Monica: Currently there are travel lanes at 10′, why do options 1 and 3 seek to widen car lanes? This isn’t the LA Car Plan, it’s the Bike Plan. Option 3 can be reconfigured to create a N/b cycle track if the layout looked like this: s/b bike lane at 6′ | s/b car lane at 10′ | center turn lane at 9′ | n/b car lane at 10′ | parking at 8′ | buffer at 3′ | n/b bike lane/cycle track at 7′. This reconfiguration does not change elements that LADOT proposes. Cars still get center turn lane, north and south travel and parking is included and cyclists get bicycle facilities.
Or we could layout the street like this: s/b bike lane at 6′ | buffer at 3′ | s/b car travel at 10′ | center turn at 9′ | n/b car travel at 10′ | bike lane at 7′ | parking at 9′. Again this reconfiguration doesn’t change any of the elements LADOT proposes.
Bundy Dr from Santa Monic to La Grange
Why does option 1 give cars an extra .5′ ? Why not reallocate the space to the cycle lane? Car lanes could arguably even be 9′ and give more space to the bike lanes. I oppose LADOT’s proposed option 1 because it places bicyclists in the door zone.
Why does Option 2 again give cars superfluous space? Option 2 can be redone (and not change any of the elements LADOT wants to include) like this s/b bike lane at 6′ | buffer at 3′| s/b car travel at 10′ | s/b car travel at 10′ | center turn at 9′ | n/b car travel at 10′ | buffer at 3′ | bike lane at 5′.
Bundy Dr. from LA Grange to Olympic: What’s up with the car centric planning in this proposal? how about (at no expense to the car travel) s/b bike lane at 6′ | buffer at 3′ | s/b car travel at 10′ | s/b car travel at 10′ | center turn at 9′ | n/b car travel at 10′ | n/b car travel at 10′ | buffer at 3′ | n/b bike lane at 5′.
Of course I’d love to see cycle tracks at this portion….
Bundy Dr from Olympic to Pico: If I had to choose, I’d support Option 2 but I would reconfigure the option to look like this– s/b bike lane at 6′ | buffer at 3′ | parking at 8′ | 2 s/b car travel lanes at at 10′ | center turn at 9′ | n/b car travel at 10′ | n/b bike lane at 6′ parking at 8′
Bundy between Pico and Ocean Park: I support option 2 but would reconfigure it like this– s/b bike lane at 6′ | buffer at 3′ | 2 s/b car lanes at 10′ each | center turn at 9′ | n/b car lane at 10′ | parking at 8′ | buffer at 3′ | bike lane at 5′
Bundy between Ocean and Stanwood I support option 2 but would reconfigure like this– s/b bike lane at 6′ | buffer at 3′ | 2 s/b car lanes at 10′ each | center turn at 9′ | n/b car lane at 10′ | parking at 8′ | buffer at 3′ | bike lane at 7′.
For Centinela between Stanwood and Venice I would reconfigure LADOT’s solution like this: parking at 7′ | s/b bike lane at 5′ | s/b car lane at 10′ | center turn at 9′ | 2 n/b car lanes at 10′ | parking at 7′ | buffer at 3′ | n/b bike lane at 5′. If car lanes were reduced to 9′ cycle tracks on both sides could be accommodated.
For Sepulveda between Venice and National: Why is bike lane in door zone? Is the safety of cyclists no a concern to the city? LADOT’s solution will not encourage mass cycling. By not messing with LADOT’s solution too much I’d recommend shaving off that .5′ in the car lanes and give it to the bike lane.
For Sepulveda between National and Pico I support the road diet Option 3 but it could easily create cycle like this– s/b bike lane at 6′ | buffer at 3′ | parking at 7′ | s/b car lane at 10′ | center turn at 9′ | n/b car lane at 10′ | parking at 7′ | buffer at 3′ | n/b bike lane at 5′
For Sepulveda between Pico and La Grange: I support Option 2 but would reconfigure like this– s/b bike lane at 6′ | buffer at 3′ | parking at 7′ | s/b car lane at 10′ | center turn at 9′ | n/b car lane at 10′ | n/b bike lane at 7′
Sepulveda between La Grange and Santa Monica I support option 2 but would reconfigure like this– s/b bike lane at 6′ | buffer at 3′| parking at 7′ | 2 s/b car lanes at 10′ | center turn at 9′ | n/b car lane at 10′ | bike lane at 6′
National Pl between Overland and National Blvd I’d keep layout but take 1′ from parking and .5′ from car lane and give it to the bike lane.
Westwood Blvd between National and Ayress I support Option 2 but would widen the bike lane at the expense of the width of parking lane and the car lanes to make the bike lanes in each direction 6.5′
Westwood between Ayress and Santa Monica I support Option 1 but would reconfigure like this– s/b bike lane at 6′ | buffer at 3′ | parking at 7′ | s/b car lane at 10′ | center turn at 9′ | n/b car lane at 10′ | parking at 7′ | buffer at 3′ | n/b bike lane at 5′ OR s/b bike lane at 6′ | buffer at 3′ | parking at 7′ | s/b car lane at 10′ | center turn at 9′ | n/b car lane at 10′ | bike lane at 7′ | parking at 8′
Overland between Venice and McCune one of the bike lanes can be converted to a cycle track by taking 1′ from the car 11′ car lanes and narrow the center turn by 1′. This would allow a 3′ buffer to accommodate the cycle track OR bike lanes can be made 7′ by narrowing the 11′ car lanes.
Overland between McCune and Palms Option 2 can accommodate a cycle track in 1 direction by having a 3′ buffer from narrowing 10.5′ lanes to 10′, the center turn from 10′ to 9′, and the 11′ to 10′. OR cycle tracks in each direction by narrowing the parking to 7′, narrowing the 10.5′ lanes to to 10′, narrowing center turn to 9′ and narrowing 11′ lane to 10′ and narrowing one bike lane to 5′. This would allow 3′ buffers between the cycle tracks and the parking.
Again, for Overland between Palms and Rose if we narrow parking, 11′ car lanes, center turn and 1 bike lane we can have 5′ and 6′ cycletracks. Or we could place the bike lanes out of the door zone by narrowing the 11′ car lanes and the center turn and handing that space over to vulnerable cyclists
Overland between Rose and National I support Option 2 but by making car lanes 10′, center turn to 9′ and creating better bike lanes out of the door zone.
Ave of Stars why not make bike lanes 7 or 8′ by narrowing 11′ car lanes to 10′ and narrowing the buffer? It’d be great if bicyclists could travel side by side and there be room for other bicyclists to pass on the left.
If LADOT is too resistant to the reconfigurations I suggested to accommodate cycle tracks I think we could at least have wider bike lanes or buffered bike lanes… And maybe try a few of them in green? And maybe design these facilities with intersection treatment as well? What good is a bike lane if it disappears close to intersections and leaves new bicyclists forced to guess what to do and mix with cars? 2-stage left turns, bike boxes, bike signals that get green while right turning cars have red (this would do wonders to increase safety for cyclists). I feel the questions being asked when designing these facilities should be 1) How is this protecting cyclists from automobiles? 2) How do we get this facility to be attractive to the widest age ranges given our limits? For example, if we really really, absolutely, positively cannot implement cycle tracks, can we at least narrow parking lane/car lane/ turning lane/ to provide a buffer or wider cycle lane And lastly 3) How will we safely guide cyclists through intersection/to make left turn/ to make right turn
Often it feels like the only question being asked is “How can we squeeze a bike lane in at as little expense at the motorists? But if we do, can we at least widen the car lanes that remain? Or have them be as wide as possible and have the bike lanes be only 5′ ?”
Forgot to add, why do we accept door-zone bike lanes as inevitable? Many of the designs shown could move the bike lanes out of the door zone by narrowing the car lanes that are a grossly excessive 11′ and 12′ and center turning lanes that are 10′ ? Please, LADOT engineers, show compassion for the lives of cyclists and design SAFE facilities. Door-zone bike lane IS NOT acceptable when there is clearly ample room to simply reallocate space to cyclists by narrowing car lanes and turning lanes.
I don’t want the car lanes to be smaller, there is no room for error on the cars part.
Those car drivers are distracted and in their own world. Smaller travel lanes will allow them to drift in the bike lane from behind me and I can’t see them coming. I rather see ahead of me and pay attention to “doors” opening then get hit from behind.
I have been almost “mirrored” more then I can count, one of my pet peeves. I wish the State of California would change the law that cars, buses, and trucks MUST give bicyclist 3 feet when they pass. Maybe, next year, Brown will sign it into law.
I’ve said this before hopeful motorist will start respecting bicyclist on the street by seeing more and more bicycle facilities’ on the road and then recognize bicyclist have the same right to be on the road as cars.
Well when we don’t allow drivers to be sloppy by making their lanes narrower we also force them to be more aware on the road. It’s like what Vanderbilt describes in his book Traffic- he was scared driving on a narrow street, going uphill. He had to be extra aware and careful when driving. Conversely when he drove on a highway with extrawide lanes he felt so comfortable he almost dosed off and crashed. What we expect to be more dangerous can actually be more safe because it doesn’t allow for error.
walkeaglerock is making a lot of sense here. I’d rather have one separated cycletrack that allows for bikes in both directions on one side of a street than two narrow bike lanes that are in the door zone, would have cars going by at 35 mph, and would have trash cans in them on trash day.
Our comments here are forwarded to the BPIT folks right? I’d like my suggestions to be taken sincerely. I’m no engineer but some of them seem doable…