L.A. Bike Master Plan - How We're Screwed and What To Do About It

Scenes from the recent Bicycle Master Plan meeting in West L.A. [photos by Alex Thompson]

Right now, the City of Los Angeles' Department of Transportation is in the process of creating a new "Bicycle Master Plan" (with hired consultants, Alta Planning). This seems like great news for cyclists. Finally, we'll get a chance to have our needs taken into account. The benefits of bicycling will be allowed to flourish in L.A.! Well, think again.

I know this may sound strange to the lay-person, but a critical part of a "Bicycle Master Plan" is the inclusion of material that can be used in later grant applications. "Well", you might be thinking, "that doesn't sound so bad."

Click to magnify. This is from the LADOT's 2005-06 Annual Report [.pdf]. The "lead" agency in this case has no transportation plan or guidelines - the DOT is in charge.

So, the Bicycle Master Plan document is being created to help the LADOT apply for funding at the county, state, and federal level for bicycle projects. Big deal, right?

Here is another twist: the county (basically the MTA), the state (CalTrans), and the federal government do not consider bike trips to be equivalent to trips made using a private automobile. I know what you're thinking: "Bikes move people. Cars move people. What's the difference?"

In fact, these agencies have explicit policies about this sort of thing: bicycles projects simply must not intrude on the domain of the automobile. If anything, bike projects should move bicyclists permanently out of the way, in order to speed up "transportation". When these agencies look to fund bicycle projects, they focus on projects that will not slow or diminish the speed and volume of private automobiles.

This is where things get weird. The Los Angeles Bicycle Master Plan has to be crafted in such a way that it will actually have no impact on automobile traffic, or will speed automobile traffic up. That is pretty twisted, isn't it?

I mean, what about judging a bicycle project based on how it affects cyclists? Or better yet, why not judge a bicycle project based on how it affects air quality, noise pollution, business revenues, or local quality of life? The only significant measure that the LADOT makes of cycling is a count of cyclists using the road. That is it. A count. They have someone stand on the corner and count how many bikes go by during the hours of peak automobile use.

If they don't see many cyclists, it's because people don't like to bike - so why design roads for something people don't like to do?

If they do see bike riders, those riders are a problem - those bikes are getting in the way of "traffic"! We'll have to seclude them somehow ... hmmm ... how about a "bike trail" off to the side of the road. No! How about beside that cement drainage canal. No! How about right down in the drainage canal! Perfect! (For more information about bike trails, you can check out the court case "Prokop vs. City of Los Angeles")

From the meaningless survey of cyclists' opinions, to the four pro-forma public hearings being held to take in public comments - the entire "Bicycle Master Plan" process is rigged to get bicycles out of the way. A few friends of mine have suggested that the entire "Bicycle Master Plan" process is really just a scheme to generate a little bit more money to pay for the staff, equipment, and facilities controlled by the LADOT.

Click to magnify. The names are out of date, however "Operations and "Transportation Development" are still separate entities in the DOT.

I didn't think they were serious, until I took a look at an organizational chart of the LADOT [.pdf file] (You'll also have to look a this older chart [.pdf file]). I don't want to get too involved in explaining the workings of such a large department (which I do not understand completely). Suffice it to say that the LADOT does a lot of stuff - from running the DASH buses down to licensing cabbies.

Click to magnify. We drill down one level from the top - keep your eye on the "Bureau of Capital Programming".

It turns out that the DOT has a staff of "Bikeways Engineers", which should sound promising. It is reasonable to assume that the "bikeway engineers" are engaged in, well, bikeway engineering.

You see, there are other traffic engineers at the LADOT who engineer traffic on a daily basis. Once they get money from the city, and through public grants, these engineers designate curbs to be painted, roads to be widened, etc. These engineers work in the "Operations" section of the LADOT. They engage in roadway engineering projects, sometimes with contentions results.

Again, bikeway engineers must be engaged in doing the same thing, but for bicycles, right? They must be a part of the "Operations" wing of the DOT, right? Wrong.

Click to magnify. Here we are ... bikeways, bikeways, bikeways - ah! There they are. Typing up grant applications.

The DOT has a special section set up to shuffle paperwork, draw up plans, and apply for money from other government agencies. This "beg fo' money" portion of the LADOT is called the "Office of Transportation Development". This wing of the DOT is where you will find the "bikeway engineers". These cats are nowhere near a can of thermoplastic paint - they are glorified grant writers for the LADOT.

I know this sounds like a big anti-bicycle conspiracy, but well ... it sort of is.

The public agencies that fund transportation intentionally push good bike projects out of the way so they can keep cars moving faster and in ever greater numbers. Meanwhile, the LADOT only keeps bikeways engineers on staff in order to beg for money for what are essentially road widenings.

Cyclists are getting screwed at the local, county, state, and federal level! What the heck is going on?

A lot of things are going wrong. There is the history of transportation engineering in the U.S. to deal with. Along with that, we have, thus far, been blessed with black gold at cut rate prices. Our media outlets' and our politicians' fortunes are subject to the whims of a motoring public and automobile industry advertisers. It is complicated.

Here is how to deal with it: we need to foster political will.

A bicycle based transportation network offers a low cost solution to the quickly approaching problem of oil scarcity. A bike transportation network can naturally revitalize a local business district. Proper planning for bicycles requires paying closer attention to local quality of life concerns - safety, noise, pollution, social isolation, and blight. Bicycle planning is good planning, and good politics.

I whole heartedly support the efforts of cyclists to attend the upcoming Bicycle Master Plan public meetings. I think you could do yourself one better, as a cyclist, by communicating your needs to you local city councilperson.

This issue can only be solved by the application of political pressure. We need to start (as groups of us are now doing) by pressuring the LADOT. We need to get our council offices involved - and ask that the planning department take control of the Bicycle Master Plan process.

Later on, we'll need to find, or buy, a state representative that will be willing to enact new laws that call for measuring bike and car trips equally, and which employ measurements that show the effects each type of transport has on neighborhoods.

I look forward to the coming weeks - the news stories, blog posts, films, and rallies that are slowly increasing in frequency and effort.

It is my hope that this time around the interest of cyclists will hold sway, as they never have before, in the crafting of the "Bicycle Master Plan" and the future of Los Angeles.