"Public Involvement"
A new Bike Plan will allow the city to apply for a source of state funding called the "Bicycle Transportation Account" (BTA).
The BTA is administered by CalTrans' Division of Local Assistance, which is doling out a whopping $7.2 million state-wide for bicycle projects. To give you some perspective on this amount, it costs around $1 million for one mile of bike lane in L.A.
The Los Angeles Department of Transportation is paying $450,000 to Alta Planning, a bicycle friendly firm, to draft a new Bike Plan and obtain input from the public.
Alta Planning has gone so far as to create a "Public Involvement" web-site for the new L.A. Bike Plan. On the "Public Involvement" site you can fill out a survey, map streets that you'd like to see made bike friendly, and email the Alta Planning team directly (through a web-based form).
All of that sounds great. It also sounds redundant.
Redundant or Ridiculous? Probably Both.
I wonder if the LADOT, the Planning Department, or anyone at Alta Planning has seen the MTA's 2004 survey of cyclists in Los Angeles County?
If you haven't heard of the MTA's 2004 survey of cyclists either, don't feel bad. It is hard to find. It is only offered up as a multi-megabyte .pdf file (138 pages long). It is available on the MTA's Bikeway Section page - but you cannot navigate to that page from the MTA's main web-site.
Plus, the survey is not named "MTA Cyclist Survey of 2004". They wouldn't make it that easy! It is named "Enhanced Public Outreach Project for Metro's Bicycle Transportation Strategic Plan". Let's just call it "the EPOP".
I went ahead and transcribed some of the juicier tidbits of the EPOP from that massive .pdf file.
The EPOP is a revelation. The EPOP is thorough. The EPOP is ignored.
The MTA's EPOP established how and why people use bicycles. Using the EPOP data, the MTA was able to show cyclists' general needs.
The intent of the EPOP was to save cities the hassle of asking their bike riders the most basic questions again. The EPOP is supposed to be a set of data, findings, and recommendations that can be built upon by local cities applying for BTA funds.
With the EPOP in the bag, there is no need for L.A. to ask its cyclists questions like "What types of streets do you bike on?", or "Where do you ride to and from?", "Do you like bike lanes?", or the classic "What is your yearly income?".
A screen grab of the first page of the L.A. Bike Plan's public survey - same damn questions we were asked in 2004 by the MTA!So, what types of questions has the team working on the L.A. Bike Plan cooked up? Here are some examples:
"On which types of roads do you prefer riding on for your level of comfort?"
"What type of facility do you prefer to ride on? Bike path, bike route, sidewalk, bike lane?"
and the classic
"What is your yearly income?
These results are from the MTA's 2004 survey of cyclists. These findings are being poorly replicated for the L.A. Bike Plan's "Public Involvement" process.I've got a question for the folks working on this plan: do you think we're a bunch of idiots?
The L.A. Bike Plan survey is a crappy replica of the MTA's EPOP.
For you social justice types out there, you'll be interested to know that the L.A. Bike Plan's survey is using a survey technique that skews towards upper income recreational cyclists (web-only or public hearing only surveys).
For the love of God, someone forward this link to the "EPOP" to Alta Planning, the LADOT Bikeways Section, and anyone alive in the Planning Department who knows what a bicycle is.
Better still, call up your councilman and tell him or her why their district is not going to be getting any bicycle projects in it for a long time. You can reach their downtown offices by dialing (213) 473-70xx (xx is where you insert the two digits that make up your council district number, 01 through 15). Ask for their transportation person.
Posts
4 comments:
fyi:
the project manager for Metro's EPOP is also working with Alta - so it's safe to assume they know about the plan.
I know that Lynne Goldsmith is working with Alta Planning to further develop the Bicycles Transportation Strategic Plan. I raised this point because Alta's survey is a bad copy of the EPOP's survey.
The EPOP adminstered survey was thorough in its attempt to find cyclists.
With the EPOP done, the L.A. Bike Plan could do a more sophisticated survey or more outreach. Instead, they are doing a crappy copy.
I know that Alta Planning has a bunch of smart people. They are making the best of a bad situation.
The process itself is not structured to take into account the actual interests of cyclists.
My feeling about the process right now is that this Bike Plan is a pro-forma step in getting the LADOT Bikeways Section some BTA money to keep their staff employed.
To me it all boils down to the monitoring and evaluation section of the bike plan (and general plan). The only performance-based measurements being used to grade our roads have to do with private automobiles.
A bike plan that does not treat bicycles as a form of transportation isn't worth the paper it is written on.
> this Bike Plan is a pro-forma step in getting the LADOT Bikeways Section some BTA money to keep their staff employed.
Bingo.
Given the sums involved are so comically minuscule, I can't really summon any outrage over this. I DO however wonder how the people working on this (who I imagine given their druthers would genuinely like to help cyclists) can get up every morning and go through the motions working on BS like this.
I managed Metro's outreach study and I'm managing the LA Bike Plan. The primary focus of Metro's study was to better understand the needs of lower-income cyclists who generally don't attend public meetings or respond to on-line surveys. It was also intended to inform Metro policymakers about the needs of bicyclists. Metro's jurisdictional authority is very different from that of LA or any other city. Metro operates the regional transit system and doles out transportation funding, but has no jurisdiction over city streets. The City of LA does have jurisdiction over streets. The surveys are different because they are designed to inform different policy decisions. The Metro survey was only done a few years ago, but the cycling community has changed significantly since then. A lot of folks who have had the opportunity to respond to the current survey may not have had the chance to take the surveys back in 2004.
Surveys are always an imperfect tool, so if anyone thinks the survey is problematic or doesn't capture the information you want to convey to us, please submit your comments through the website: www.labikeplan.org
I agree with the assessment that auto-oriented performance measures are problematic for cyclists. It's a problem across the country. We will do our best to address that issue in the plan and we welcome ongoing input on this and other issues.
Post a Comment