Say Goodbye to Santa Monica Boulevard Bike Lanes [recap]

Cycling prohibited graphicIf you expected that Beverly Hills might install bicycle lanes on our segment of North Santa Monica Boulevard when reconstructing it next year, you will be sorely disappointed to know that City Council appears to have pounded the final nail into the bike lanes coffin. The decision reflects a lack of concern for the scores of speakers who supported the inclusion of bicycle lanes as a safety measure and stands as a rebuke to the hundreds more who urged our city in written comments to do the right thing by riders.

[Note: this post has been edited substantially from the original to include new transcribed material from the City Council study session. We’ve also distinguished more clearly our own editorial commentary, which is appended at bottom, and removed some theorizing about City Hall to an upcoming post. We hope it proves more readable!]

City Council Study Session: Project Design Recommendations

At today’s meeting, a split (3-1) Council turned away from the city’s Blue Ribbon Committee recommendation to stripe bicycle lanes and directed staff to proceed with this major corridor reconstruction without the inclusion of bicycle lanes. In the majority were councilmembers Willie Brien, Nance Krasne and (Mayor) Julian Gold who seem to believe that riders in this city – and from the region beyond – simply don’t need lanes on North Santa Monica Boulevard despite overwhelming testimony to the contrary.

The prospect of putting bicycle lanes on North Santa Monica Boulevard seemed promising just last year. Lane advocates had put on the table a ‘Greenway’ design concept that included bicycle lanes yet sacrificed no Beverly Gardens parkland. Support from riders then and now was overwhelmingly in favor of including bicycle lanes.

Just prior to this study session, City Council received eleven more letters in support of bicycle lanes on North Santa Monica. None was opposed. Eight speakers at this meeting supported striping as part of the reconstruction, and most of us framed the issue in terms of our personal safety. (Incidentally, nobody spoke up against the inclusion of bicycle lanes.)

Speakers Sharon Ignarro, Carleton Lee, Tish Laemmle, Rich Hirschinger and Susan Gans, for example, all said they want a separate bicycle lanes for that reason. Laemmle said, “If you stripe the lanes, it will make it safer for everybody [because] the bike lane makes it clear: cars are on one side, bikers are on the other.”

Other reasons for support touched on our place in the larger region and world. Gans properly called out the Beverly Hills section of the boulevard as a “missing link” in the regional multimodal mobility puzzle. She highlighted three classes of users who would benefit from separate bicycle lanes (the “recreational, eco-conscious, and mandatory” riders, the latter with few transportation options). And echoing our own city plans, she urged the city to encourage all of these users to ride “by taking this one-time opportunity to make Santa Monica [boulevard] safer….””

Longtime resident and rider Barbara Linder reminded Council that if we want to be competitive globally for visitors, we have to make cycling safe.  “You talk about ‘destination city’ and we spend a lot of money for holiday lighting,” she said. “I have been to many destination cities throughout the world, and I have ridden a bicycle in most of them, and all of the class-A destination cities have bike lanes.”

Resident Kory Klem (and co-organizer of the Greenway concept presented in January) spoke about the need for Beverly Hills to look forward, not backward, to plan for new modes of mobility. Better Bike spoke up to highlight the city’s obligation to ensure that construction mitigation accommodates riders (as we communicated to the city in a recent letter).

Council Discussion

Councilmember Krasne opened the discussion repeating her position that North Santa Monica boulevard is too dangerous for riders (whom in the past she has labeled ‘organ donors’ with some humor). And that’s even after the blacktop is expanded – an option she supports. “I don’t want the bicyclists competing with heavy trucks, buses, and all the other crazy people on the road,” she said. So far so good; we don’t want to compete with heavy vehicles either. Then she proposed bike lanes on the adjacent south roadway.

I’d like one street designated for the bikers with no parking on the sides, and I’d like that to be [South] Santa Monica. I think it’s doable if we get rid of one of the [travel] lanes and have only two lanes going west and one going east. The bicyclists can have the entire width of the city to ride though, right into Century Park [sic] on ‘big’ Santa Monica where it converges. – Nancy Krasne

Her recommended route is a dangerous ride today, of course; it’s a gantlet of harried drivers and curbside parking door zones and unexpected right-hooks. Removing one travel lane, a row of curbside parking, and then restriping to add bicycle lanes would make for safe travel between Moreno Dr. and Doheny, she said.

The staff report touched on South Santa Monica Boulevard in the construction-related mitigation section, and mentioned the option of temporarily removing 39 parking spaces. But no city representative had suggested making that mitigation measure permanent for bicycle lanes.

Krasne has brought up her South Santa Monica suggestion before. And in truth we liked it then and now; a bicycle boulevard on the south roadway would be great. But every time it’s raised there is pushback because of the loss of parking.

This time pushback came from from Lili Bosse, always a champion of businesses, who agreed with letting the Traffic and Parking Commission review mitigation options on the south roadway. But clearly she was not comfortable with Krasne’s concept. “I have a LOT of questions about this,” she said.

But councilmember Bosse was less equivocal about striping bicycle lanes on North Santa Monica Boulevard:

I absolutely support the widening and the striping of bike lanes. The significant concerns were taking green space from the parks, and I think we’ve come up with a way to achieve a street that will be consistent and safe and w/o taking green space. I take note of what Barbara Linder said. Having just come back from Paris, NY, Washington, Sweden – all of these cities are metropolitan cities and have bike lanes.” – Lili Bosse

More importantly, Bosse said:

I think this is actually a safety issue… Once repaved, bikes will absolutely use those streets. [Striping] would allow for a safer environment. It’s where we as a city need to be.*

Whatever the merits of installing bicycle lanes somewhere off North Santa Monica, merely advancing the proposal takes the focus off of North Santa Monica Boulevard. That allowed other councilmembers to fudge. For example, councilmember Willie Brien said he does not support bicycle lanes for North Santa Monica Boulevard “at this time.”

I think this is a unique opportunity to look at our streetscape and our traffic routes; what we want our business district to be; [whether] we want ‘little’ Santa Monica to be an increasing[ly] pass-through roadway for our city, or do we want to make that a street that’s more usable for our businesses… That’s why we want [traffic and parking commission] to take a look at it. – Councilmember Willie Brien

But the commission will be charged with reviewing mitigation options, not advance mobility planning for the triangle. As for bicycle lanes there someday, Brien was again noncommittal. “Maybe bike lanes in that area, or other alternatives to that. I’m not ready to say where we would do that.” As for North Santa Monica: “I don’t support striping ‘big’ Santa Monica at this point. That doesn’t mean we couldn’t get there, but at this point that was not the intent.”

But the discussion of bicycle lanes among other options was exactly the point of today’s discussion. The lanes was even identified as an option in the staff report (though with the caveat, “if desired”).

When pressed by Bosse about the bigger picture – i.e., how tomorrow’s vision for South Santa Monica might be reconciled with today’s political sensitivity about parking – he punted. “It may be bike lanes; it may not. It may be less parking on there [or] it may be different pedestrian opportunities.” He added, “That’s the point: to take a different look” at a “master street project that actually could meet all of our needs.”

Mayor Julian Gold was up next. He didn’t support boulevard medians but called bicycle lanes “a possibility and something I would consider.” Only not now.

In the matter of widening the roadway, I’m OK with that, and, in concert with the conversations from councilmembers Krasne and Brien, I think the decision about bicycle lane striping is a fallback – it’s something to be considered – but until we resolve the issue of the use of South Santa Monica Boulevard as a potential bike lane, I think we should just leave that unanswered.” – Mayor Julian Gold

So at this key juncture, during the discussion on project design, he’s not supporting bicycle lanes for North Santa Monica Boulevard. And in the end the Council split 3-1 on striping bicycle lanes. (John Mirisch was absent.) It did unite on expanding the boulevard, however, though split (2-2) on the medians. Tomorrow’s boulevard won’t have them.

What About That Bicycle Lanes Concept for South Santa Monica?

The prospect of bicycle lanes on South Santa Monica Boulevard seems unrealistic. While it is something we would support, Bosse reminded us that there is political opposition in the business triangle community to removing any curbside parking. We expect that no future City Council will eliminate a travel lane in order to accommodate bicycle riders. (While we support at least a temporary striped bicycle lane during construction as a mitigation measure, Traffic and Parking Commission discussions on the issue suggest it’s probably not in the offing either.)

So why suggest that Santa Monica South be our city’s bike-friendly crosstown street? Perhaps it is Nancy Krasne thinking big. (It doesn’t appear to be part of a calculated strategy. But in light of the political priorities it may well be a naive idea.) Indeed give credit where it is due: she was the lone voice urging the Community Development Department to find a couple of extra feet for blacktop adjacent to the five parking garages, and they found it.

While the South Santa Monica concept may not be realistic, it is very useful to bicycle lane opponents on City Council for two reasons. First, it is a red herring that distracts attention from the question that was actually before City Council during this important design phase: Whether or not to include bicycle lanes on North Santa Monica boulevard. And to that question the Council majority answered unequivocally: No bicycle lanes for North Santa Monica.

Second, it gives bicycle lane opponents Brien and Gold political cover to reject bicycle lanes for North Santa Monica Boulevard. With the Krasne proposal on the table, Brien could recommend that the city simply study concepts like it “before making a definitive decision” about bicycle lanes on the north roadway. For Gold, too, the concept is “something to be considered.” (No need to hurry to put bicycle lanes on our busy truck corridor, though.)

Our Take

Despite rhetoric about the ‘safer city’ and the ‘smart city,’ our City Council doubled-down on auto-mobility at the expense of rider safety. That undermines support for our own multimodal mobility policies and eschews an effective traffic control device that is approved by both the federal and state DOTs for corridors just like this one. And it comes at a moment when transportation agencies across the country are recognizing their obligation to create roadways that provide safe access for all users. The principle is known as ‘complete streets.’

That’s why the addition of bicycle lanes was recommended by the city’s own Blue Ribbon Committee as well as supported by the Los Angeles County Bicycle Coalition. Proponents included officials from neighboring cities and of course everyday riders from Beverly Hills and beyond.

The Council’s decision not to stripe bicycle lanes despite room to accommodate them only makes sense when you acknowledge the rationale: creating extra-wide right-hand lanes prevents bicycle riders from riding in the center of lane as allowed under state law for sub-15 foot lanes. Thus under current City Council direction, riders would not be able to ride in the center of the lane even if safety recommended it. Imagine sharing the right lane with a dirt hauler piloted by a driver who himself wants to use the center of the lane. Where is the marginalized rider to go?

The extra-wide #2 lane endorsed by City Council just recreates the conditions that today have riders concerned about personal safety. That’s why, despite it being recommended by staff, validated by consultant Psomas, and as of this meeting endorsed by City Council, the federal department of transportation says that on an expanded corridor like ours bicycle lanes are more safe for riders than are extra-wide curb lanes.

Did the ‘Fix’ Come a Year Ago?

Better Bike has been advocating for a bike-friendly Beverly Hills since 2010. Bicycle Lanes for Santa Monica Boulevard was not only a topic of our earliest meetings but it has remained our most high-profile issue ever since. As we’ve observed, bike lanes on this corridor is the signal issue that would telegraph our city’s commitment to multimodal mobility. And for a time our hopes were somewhat buoyed. Contemporary thinking about mobility is trending in our favor, after all, and the Blue Ribbon Committee in January of 2014 recommended the city stripe bicycle lanes. It put the wind at our back.

But an indication that lanes were off the table came in March of 2014 when City Council simply sidestepped the Blue Ribbon Committee’s recommendations. At that meeting, three out of five councilmembers most clearly expressed their opposition to bicycle lanes (it is the only time they’ve gone on the record with candid opposition).

That fall a two-member ‘liaison’ committee meeting (Bosse + Brien) decided to take boulevard expansion off the table. That would have killed the lanes for good. (If we weren’t closely reading the staff report we would have been blindsided by it. Nevertheless we marshaled support for pushing back against the liaison decision and got the option on the table again.)

Fast forward a few months and the lanes question came back to City Council, which then punted in January of 2015. “Let’s talk about it later in the design phase,” Council said, deferring the discussion. And that’s where we find ourselves today: discussing project design. And bicycle lanes aren’t much a part of the discussion unlike early 2014.

Visualizations of options from the staff report

No visualization in the staff report pictured a bicycle lane, even though it was an option on the table.

But back then we recognized the signs of a done deal. As we pointed out in advance of this week’s meeting, the new staff report only affirmed our feeling: it made only passing reference to bicycle lanes and, more telling, it added the “if desired” caveat to the bicycle lanes option. And the report also illustrated numerous design options (like medians and landscaping) but tellingly presented not one image of a bicycle lane.

And then there is the city’s proposed budget for FY 2015-16 (which was posted online back in May). It noted as an accomplishment: “Finalized recommendations for final design of the Santa Monica Boulevard Reconstruction Project.” Heck, we thought that was the point of this meeting. You know, to discuss design options?

From the staff report suggesting that the ‘accomplishment’ cited in May would still be on the table today:

This report continues the City Council’s review of the Santa Monica Boulevard Reconstruction project at the 50% design drawing phase, focusing on: 1) widening on the south side of the roadway; 2) drainage concepts; 3) medians; 4) street lights; and 5) traffic mitigation during construction. Staff seeks City Council’s direction on these items in order to proceed with the final design and preparation of construction documents for bidding purposes. – Staff report

From the beginning, though, elements of this process were removed from public view. The staff recommended not to stripe bicycle lanes back in late 2013 before the Blue Ribbon had not even concluded business, for example. And the liaison committee’s decision not to expand the boulevard, announced quietly in November of 2014 in a staff report, came without warning.

Now at this meeting we learned that a new liaison committee (or is it an ad-hoc committee?) included councilmembers Brien and Krasne. They met to discuss boulevard design on July 9th. Now that meeting was effectively internal: it wasn’t electronically noticed or calendared online, we believe, yet according to the discussion what was decided behind those closed doors figured importantly into the Council’s decision today. But that’s how City Hall often works: through informal networks, ex-parte communication, and the hidden hand of lobbyists.

Regardless of how it happened, the Council’s position on bicycle lanes appears to have gelled long ago. That made securing a sensible ‘complete streets’ traffic control facility for busy Santa Monica Boulevard an uphill battle indeed.

*Unfortunately, Lili Bosse was not so vocally supportive of bicycle lanes when the question last came to City Council. She had let other councilmembers take the lead in that discussion despite being one of the two members of a Council liaison committee (along with Brien) that had bilaterally decided not to expand the boulevard – thus precluding bicycle lanes in the future.

10 thoughts on “Say Goodbye to Santa Monica Boulevard Bike Lanes [recap]

  1. Thanks for this. Well-written and very informative. I am extremely disappointed in this decision. I ride from West Hollywood to Santa Monica every day and will continue to do so so this is obvious concern to me.

    I agree that South Santa Monica is more dangerous and I never ride it because of the reasons you outlined. Safety is not always intuitive and it takes experience to know what to do (especially in Beverly Hills).

    The fact that the city does not understand street safety and what is going on out there is frightening. However, the global momentum for safe streets will continue to surge and at some point, even bucolic little patches like BH will be compelled to get on board.

    I do appreciate all the hard work you and others have done and I sincerely hope you continue the fight even during dark days like these.

    – J Williams

  2. I am so sorry to hear about this. While I agree, that it was a long shot, it is still demoralizing to keep campaigning against intractable forces of regressiveness. Keep up the good work. I don’t live anywhere near Beverly Hills, but i still read your articles when they are spotlighted in Streetsblog and appreciate all the hard work you do!

  3. > intractable forces of regressiveness
    Love it! Let’s see what the dictionary says: “regression |ri?greSH?n| noun. 1. a return to a former or less developed state • a return to an earlier stage of life or a supposed previous life… or as a means of escaping present anxieties.”
    Yep – that about sums up the perspective of Beverly Hills leadership!

  4. @JWilliams – Thanks for the comments. If one reviews the discussion about multimodal mobility (my term – city leaders or transportation officials NEVER use it, though it says that in our plans) on North Santa Monica, it’s clear that nothing said has any traction with the majority of councilmembers. No matter how many cogent speakers recount personal experience; no matter what US DOT or any academic study says about bicycle lanes or safety; no matter how the safety issue is framed or by whom, it’s fingers-in-the-ears humming like it never was said.

    Such is the value of public input in Beverly Hills very often. Unless you’re a homeowner looking to gut the preservation ordinance. Then Nancy Krasne will speak about the many letters to tank it that Council received, not matter that they were all identical cut-and-paste boilerplate. THEN Council hears you. Thanks for reading!

  5. How much does it cost to run for office in Beverly Hills these days? I mean, what are these folks spending to occupy a seat in a city of 40,000?

    Isn’t there just as much, if not more, of an interest in retailers and non-connected property owners to see their streets turned to productive uses instead of funneling ever more high speed private automobiles past their front doors?

    I can’t imagine a single council campaign costing more than $800,000 ($200 per vote for 10% of population’s vote). There are only 5 council members, which means that you only need 3 candidates to sweep into power. If there is a candidate or two already in office on your side on these issues, you’re really only looking at one vote on the council needing to be changed from no to yes and spending the resources pumping that one person along with your slate of two re-election candidates. $800,000 split 3 ways is $266k each – and that is for a HUGE mailer, get out the vote, door knocking, billboard, operation in a city this size.

    Screw attending council meetings and begging some a$%&oles for safe streets! Find a few interested parties, hold your own town halls, vet your own candidates, and fund raise to change the face of the streets of Beverly Hills.

    This vote is the litmus test and the council just failed it, miserably. Throw the bums out.

    Hand over some land use decisions, pick a side in some intra-Beverly Hills culture wars, find votes being ignored by these lazy self congratulation fluff balls, and build your growing coalition, then kick some ass come election time.

    Writing about this stuff and going to meetings is for people who want to keep the status quo going steady on. Freak these people out and they will start making changes in the way the streets are designed ASAP.

  6. Glad you asked about elections! This past go-around we had two incumbents running for Council (Bosse, Gold) and zero challengers. So the election was cancelled and the would-be candidates simply appointed. So much for a mandate! Gold is now the Mayor, BTW. As for money, we’re glad you asked about that too. In 2013 (last contested election) the three winners (out of four credible candidates running) spent an average of $47k. The top spender (Brien) spent $63k and he came in second. That put his per-vote cost at $24. John Mirisch placed first with a relatively thrifty $10-per-vote campaign cost.

    The challenge here is finding credible candidates. The class that’s captured city hall will do us no favors, but those who *might* support progressive mobility policies are often scared away from running (IMO) because of the tight social circle. Of course we have those who would push wise mobility policy choose not to get involved.

    The problem here is the voters too. Unlike LA, say, with its engagement challenges, our likely voters come disproportionately from the more stable property-owning class. We have no districts and a first-past-post system. Competition is for the relatively older, more conservative (in terms of change) voter. We have multifamily areas that don’t engage, and some segment of non-eligible residents.

    But for those who do run, the prospect augurs working mostly for the interests for whom City Hall works: the Chamber, its larger member businesses, and particularly the hospitality sector. Jeez, it would discourage me from running if I was inclined!

  7. Dudes and Dudettes,

    The money involved in Beverly Hills city council campaigns is a JOKE!

    The top campaign spenders are barely bringing in $70,000.

    Yes, it is a small city – but it also has a lot of property owners, restauranteurs, retailers, and the like who deeply depend on outside visitors coming into the area and buying their prestige experiences, goods, and services.

    Do you really think the idiots on city council are maximizing the value of private property owners interests in the area? Are they really helping the bottom lines of the majority of local retailers and restauranteurs? Are they really making the local hotels more money? Hell no!

    It would not be childs play but it would be a hell of a lot of fun to go out and raise $300,000 and spend it on 3 council candidates who could sweep in with a functioning plan to dial up the people-centric pro-business climate in Beverly Hills.

    This city is succeeding despite itself! They have turned every street into a car-only sewer, wasted vast amounts of cash on unneeded and excessive public parking lots. It is too easy to call up the Project of Public Spaces or Gehl Architects, to blow a couple grand getting their most basic level of advice, hiring Joe Minicozzi of Urban 3 to fly out and analyze the cities return on investment on a per acre cost basis and develop a 4 year plan to show a donor base what the losers in office are doing wrong right now.

    Just imagine the propaganda you could produce: interview some people about their walk from the parking lots to their favorite stores before and after you fix things up. Dump them on YouTube, interview across the spectrum. Interview people who oppose the projects. Then go back afterward.

    Easy peasy.

  8. @ubrayj02 As any member of the self-respecting Beverly Hills haute crust would say, That’s not the way we do things around here! There’s no need to fret with small business owners when the city can convene a cabal of commercial property owners and hoteliers. Why commission a study when the city could just shovel cash into the Chamber of Commerce (ostensibly to fund programs like the recent ‘Buy Local!’)?

    If our Convention and Visitors Bureau ain’t pulling their weight… Why they don’t gotta demonstrate performance; they only have to sit back and take a slice (per city policy) of our hospitality tax receipts! And if that won’t sufficiently bankroll their junkets and some $60k annually for website maintenance (you read that right) then they’ll simply come hat-in-hand for a general fund gift. And get it!

    Heck, Joseph, you’re over-thinking this whole thing! What’s ‘Urban 3′? The city has its frequent-flier swiss army knife consultant Psomas ready to dispense the advice we suggest they give us. Gehl? Never heard of him. But I bet you know Victor Gruen and his time-tested designs (like 60’s outdoor malls). He’s doing our new Gateway designs. If it ain’t broke…

    And before you go for broke on Youtube with this stuff, know we’ve got a half-million $ communications apparatus that will eat you up alive with press releases every week or 10 days or so. We’re Beverly Hills- you better know who you’re messin’ with!

  9. Running for BH is not about money. I think it’s capped at a certain amount, it’s about the cities home owners vote. The renters on the South side (renters) of the city don’t vote in any real numbers, plus the candidate has to be known. You have to go to countless homes to have small gatherings of 20-50 people to pitch your cause and issues. Will they vote for someone who wants bike lanes? I see who comes to these gathering 95% do not have a bike and won’t care, all have cars or drivers. There are a good number of younger people but they don’t ride a bike either, it’s not an issue the residents will be passionate about. BH is a very tight community, they don’t just vote for anyone. Money can’t buy election in BH, just look at John Mirisch he won the most votes with the least spend last time around.

  10. I agree with your general observations; there’s a relatively high degree of apathy here, and that presents a challenge to political organizing. By the same token, the town isn’t overrun with campaigns either. But I will say this about campaign money: it may not buy votes, but it can certainly purchase dirty campaign tactics. Remember the drunken calls purportedly from Mirisch on the eve of his first election? Dialed on behalf of the establishment, and probably bankrolled by a local political machine.

Comments are closed.