Laure () on July 07, 2010, at 05:29PM – #1

It's a matter of (progressive) education. A French citizen, I worked and used a bicycle as my main means of transportation in Paris , until I moved to SoCal. At the beginning, bikers, and especially "urban professional" bikers in Paris were highlly unusual, and (manic French) car drivers were pretty abusive about it. Yet when I left, bicycles were part of Paris' urbanscape.

I went back to Paris in 2003, and rented a bike for 6 months: I noticed that bikes had become ubiquitous, there were dedicated bike lanes, and car drivers had gotten used to (if not happy about) bikers.

The biggest challenge we have in LA, beyond education, is 1. the sheer size of its sprawl: inner city Paris is about the size of Downtown LA, which puts things in pesrpective; 2. LA was built on car transit; Paris developed over centuries of pedestrian/public transport. Makes all the difference.

Chris Loos on July 07, 2010, at 06:56PM – #2

Besides bike lanes, a less obvious bike infrastructure improvement that could be made is converting some of those one-way streets into two-way streets. 4 lanes in one direction means people drive fast. It feels like a highway, so drivers treat it as such. Biking next to cars and trucks driving fast is threatening, and for good reason...its dangerous!

Case in point: in my previous home- Wash DC, streets are the same width as in DTLA, but mostly two-way. Drivers go much slower, and there are many more cyclists. The one exception was 15th Street NW, which was 4 lanes in one direction. Motorists drove up that street so fast that locals knew it as "Highway 15". DDOT finally got their s**t together and halved the width of the street by adding seperated bike lanes between the sidewalk and the parked cars. Traffic immediately calmed down, and its a much more pleasant street, and is friendly to cyclists and pedestrians.

For the record, I don't think changes like this will ever happen until LADOT officials at the highest level realize that "its not just about moving cars as quickly as possible." At least its not if you want a city that people enjoy living in, not just driving in.

Simon Ha on July 08, 2010, at 10:12AM – #5

In LA, riding a bike is mostly a recreation activity. There are a few places in SoCal where bicycling is a normal daily activity - mostly beach cities like Newport Beach where I used to live or in college areas.

In order for bicycling to become a way of life in 'urban LA', there has to be a cultural shift where riding a bike becomes cool or at very least not geeky. If enough people run around with their helmets and pant leg rolled up on one side, others may follow.

In Paris, did policy makers decide Paris had to become bike friendly out of thin air or was it the will of people demanding bike infrastructure? Paris was already a walkable city with many transportation options unlike LA.

In Downtown, I welcome any thoughts on reducing the vehicle lanes to accommodate pedestrians and bicyclists. I agree with Chris Loos on his idea to “Slow the Flow”. This may work in to the overall idea of the Parking District concept where people park once and move around in DT by other modes of transportation.

Christophe Serafino on July 08, 2010, at 12:27PM – #6

I ride regularly. In fact I recently rode Downtown to Venice Beach and back on Monday I blogged about it here: http://cserafino.tumblr.com

I don't find riding in L.A. to be challenging, scary or a problem, but I do think there is a TON of room for improvement.

There are bike lanes that exist, the only problem is a lot of them come and go. They are inconsistent and many aren't very wide. People parking and opening doors into your bike lane is always a problem.

I think a massive bicycle highway that ran through the middle of the city, would be awesome, considering how many people bike in L.A. and our weather, I think it would get more than it's share of use. Straight down Wilshire or Olympic from Downtown to the ocean or something.

Michael on July 08, 2010, at 03:57PM – #7

I don't totally agree with the Chris. When I lived in DC, it was the traffic signals that slowed me down when I drove in the District. I lived on Capitol Hill and a friend lived in Adams Morgan. One night I counted 33 traffic lights between her house and mine. I don't think it was that far, but it seemed every block has a traffic light.

As far as the Los Angeles interurban transit system, a lot of the suburbs grew after the interurban trains. I'm thinking of the Valley where the connections wasn't that great. By the late 50's, interurban trains had really shrunk but that was about the time the outlying suburbs really began to grow. In the mid-50's, I used to commute from South Los Angeles to Long Beach and the "Big Red" was pretty empty.

() on July 08, 2010, at 05:46PM – #8

Not only France or Belgium. I went to denver recently and their Denver B-cycle Program works flawlessly; although I do agree with Laure that it's a matter of (progressive) education also. Have fun.

Marc Caldwell on July 08, 2010, at 11:56PM – #9

Chris your understanding of the Pacific Electric Railway system being the reason for urban sprawl in the greater Los Angeles area would be believable if you didn't happen to look at how your theory doesn't correlate to L.A.'s population numbers before WWII and after.

At the height of the system's usage which was in the mid 1920's, and, like you said, at the time was the largest train system in the world, L.A.'s population was the 10th largest in the nation. The Pacific Electric Railway system was doing much of the work in getting these 576,673 around SoCal. Post WWII, the car was becoming king and during this time L.A.'s current freeway system began its massive development. By the 1950's L.A.'s population had jumped to the 4th largest in the country. At this same time the Pacific Electric Railway system was becoming more and more unprofitable and its existence was just above flat lining. With this massive influx of new Angelenos and the massive arteries of freeways came the development of suburban sprawl that could have only been made possible due to the marriage of the car and the freeway.

Chris Loos on July 09, 2010, at 01:10AM – #10

@Michael

The point I was trying to make is that slower automobile traffic results in increased safety for cyclists, as well as perceived safety for cyclists. When it feels more safe to bike,people that were on the fence about it will give it a try. Greater numbers will encourage even more people to start biking, and so on. In other words, a positive feedback loop.

One way to do this in Downtown LA would be to convert some of the one-ways to two-ways, which is a method of traffic calming that has been proven successful in other cities. Its one method, but not the only method. I'd be just as happy if they left the one ways, but put the streets on "road diets", removing a couple of lanes and converting them to separated bikeways.

I think the big takeaway from the progress NYC has been making the past couple years with their "livable streets" movement is that these projects need not be expensive and take years. They can be done quickly and on the cheap with temporary materials like paint, portable barriers, and quick-curb. Once they're proven successful, there's usually more support for the city to invest in permanent infrastructure. In other words, not every innovative project has to be the result of a 5-year study and long term budget planning. Its okay to just try stuff and see if it works. I suspect LADOT feels differently, they can't resist the current sea change in urban transportation forever.

Graciela on August 23, 2010, at 10:59AM – #12

@Simon If there was a time when cycling was at the apex of cool, it's now. The helmet/rolled up pant leg guy isn't it but go to almost any part of the city and you will see teens and hipsters with candy colored fixies and single speeds. So I think the idea of the geeky commuter or the spandex roadie is being challenged by an idea of cool that is urban and is attracting people to bikes. I definitely see more people on bikes now.

I agree with another commenter here, the sprawl has to be a deterrent for people. I moved 5 miles away from my work so that I can bike to work and I'm lucky to live in a part of LA that has frequent bike traffic and lengthy bike lanes. But if you own a house 25 or 50 miles from work, I can see why you wouldn't want to try a bike. I wish there were better public transportation options so people could combine their commute between trains and their bikes. But if that adds another hour or 2 to your commute, which is the case depending where you are, then you're not going to do it.

We really have to start thinking differently about the way we live in LA and maybe get back to community based living where you work, live, and entertain yourself in your own community. Seems like the downtowners are doing that. But it's crazy to me that people will live out in the middle of nowhere and commute all the way to LA to have a house they never have the time to live in. How did that become a desirable life?