Los Angeles has experienced some significant growth in cycling in recent years. 13000 people in the city now commute by bike. The growth is something that Los Angeles is proud of, and quite rightly so.
However, this is a large city. 3.8 million people live in the city itself and almost 15 million people live in
the urban area. That's very nearly the same population as the whole country of the Netherlands, but Angelenos live with much higher density
1
Despite the density, few people cycle. Why do I consider 13000 to be few ? Well, if L.A. had the same success as the Netherlands in encouraging the population to cycle you'd expect not to just have 13000 adult commuters on bikes, but
a million journeys per hour by bike through the working week. That's the measure of success - cycling as something which is done by everyone, all the time.
So what's happening about it ?
When looking up another story which mentioned
Los Angeles a few days ago, I came across the city's
bicycle plan (also
here). This is quite an interesting document in many ways.
The plan describes a proposal for "an ambitious 1,684 mile bikeway system". This number is clearly important as it appears in particularly large print in the document. Apparently this will "build off the existing 334 miles that have been installed over the past thirty plus years". Does that indicate that the rate of cycle path building over the last thirty years has been 10 miles per year ? Well, actually, no it doesn't. I first thought that a "bikeway" was a cycle path, but it's not. Most of this "bikeway system" actually refers to on-road treatments of one kind or another. Of the existing 334 miles, only 49 miles are "Green Paths" segregated from the road. Of the proposed new 1350 miles of "bikeway", only a further 90 miles of "Green Paths" are proposed.
 |
The surprising photo chosen by the authors
of the bicycling plan to represent "Green
paths" in L.A. Narrow and enclosed, with a
bad surface and concrete surroundings
"enhanced" with barbed wire. I hope it
doesn't all look like this.2 |
And what do these off road "Green paths" look like ? I've not seen them myself, but to the left is the example chosen by the authors of the plan to illustrate them. This is very much an example of doing the wrong thing. If conditions even on the "Green paths" of L.A. resemble this photo, then I think we can see why it is that so few people cycle there
2.
The path in the photo is a very good example of having no regard at all for
social safety. It's not a very inviting place to be in the daytime, and many people wouldn't want to ride here in the dark.
The plan includes more about the "bikeways". This includes a bit of history. While only 334 miles exist now, the 1977 plan actually promised 600 miles, and the 1996 plan promised 742 miles. What happened to the other 408 miles which ought to exist by now ? While it is true that the new plan "exceeds its predecessors substantially in its commitment to bikeways", can we have any confidence that this will ever actually be realized ?
The answer appears to be on page 107. The extra 1350 miles of "bikeway", and just 90 miles of separate "green paths", are to be built over the next
35 years. Now that's a long term plan ! So the reality is that
if it all goes to plan, Los Angeles residents will in 35 years time be able to claim to have built an average of 2.5 miles per year of extra "green path", or perhaps 39 miles per year of on-road tweaks. This really is not impressive. What we have here is the sort of policy document which leaves all the decisions for future office holders. Most people involved now will be retired before anyone asks them to answer for what they've done, or perhaps what they've not done.
The Netherlands, which remember only has a population slightly larger than the urban area of Los Angeles, now has 29000 km of high quality completely separate cycle path. In addition there is an unknown length of lesser quality touristic separated paths, 5000 km of on road cycle lane and many thousands of kilometres of road which have been prioritized for bikes.
What does the L.A. plan say about bicycle parking ? Under the title of "Equity: parking", the authors say that "Safe, visible and accessible bicycle parking is essential to encourage greater levels of bicycling activity." In this, I think they're right. There must be enough parking spaces. So what has the city done ? Currently there are "over 3600" cycle parking spaces, and "bicycle parking must be provided at a ratio of two percent of the number of auto parking spaces" at some kinds of developments. 2% is an aspirational target in this context, but the 3600 spaces on street used by the four million people who live in the city doesn't even come remotely close to supporting a 2% level of usage.
By way of contrast, there are literally millions of cycle parking spaces in the Netherlands. Over 300000 cycle parking spaces for bikes have been provided at
railway stations alone, and this figure grows by
25000 per year. Residential properties in the Netherlands must provide an area for secure bike parking which is
6.5% of the floor area of the home. i.e. Enough space for the family's bikes to be stored in safety.
And what else does the document say ? Well, they make a point of dividing cyclists into three categories - Advanced / Experienced, Basic / less confident, Children with or without their parents. There is a suggestion that parallel facilities will be built for these different types of cyclists.
This is a fundamental error. To build down for inexperienced cyclists is a waste of time. Good cycling infrastructure suits all types of cyclists. Infrastructure which isn't good enough for the experienced to use for efficient journeys without problems definitely is not good enough for the inexperienced to use either. This is doubly ridiculous when there clearly isn't enough of a budget to build one good network, let alone three.
A call for action
Angelenos ! You're being fed a line !
There are a lot of expensive consultants' words in that document, but this is not how real progress is made. The Dutch also had a bicycle master plan
back in 1990. Since that time, many policies have been followed which have resulted in real change, and a population just slightly larger than that of the L.A. urban area now make an extraordinary proportion of their journeys by bike. The same could perhaps be achieved in L.A., but the current plan isn't even scratching the surface of what is required to make it a reality.
1: 2570 people per square km in Los Angeles vs. 402 per square km in the Netherlands. Nowhere in the Netherlands compares with the high population densities of large US cities.
2: While reviewing this article I was sent this link to a discussion about one of green paths in Los Angeles. A couple of quotes: "The consensus is that this path might be one of the nicest in town, however, check the comments below, because some cyclists think it goes through some pretty bad neighborhoods, while others don’t. But, if you can feel safe (e.g. with a group), it’s a nice, pretty, breezy ride...", "It is generally a nice ride during the day, though I would recommend avoiding it after dark (no lights and bad neighborhoods are potential problems). I occasionally come across “less than upstanding looking citizens” on the way", "It certainly isn’t all that bad. Of couse, you wouldn’t want to ride it at night, but that’s because the path isn’t lit, and there’s no barrier between the path and the canal....", "some punks have been breaking glass bottles along the route lately, and it doesn’t appear that the city does much to maintain the path". Another path description says "Sadly, like so many of the bike trails described here, large sections of this path are incredibly run-down, virtually junkyards.", and another is "not very highly recommended, unless you’re into gangs and graffitti". Not everyone agrees, of course. Some people are always more sensitive than others. However, there is clearly a problem with social safety on these paths.
I know there are problems with money in L.A. but it's a false economy to ignore cycling because of this. Cycling infrastructure is cheaper to build than not to build.