About Our Safe Streets Campaign

Congestion on Santa Monica Boulevard

Our Campaign for Better Transportation Choices

bike jump

Beverly Hills: Rollin’ like it’s 1977!

Better Bike is all about making our streets safe and accessible for all travelers. Since 2010 we have pressed City of Beverly Hills to leave behind our outdated transportation policies and join our Westside municipal neighbors to support safe, ‘multimodal mobility’ alternatives to the automobile.

Today we don’t have practical transportation options in Beverly Hills. While each of us expects to arrive safely at our destination regardless of whether we travel by bike, foot or car, too often choosing to walk or ride a bicycle summons fear of injury. These travel modes simply must be safe and practical options too.

As our own city plans recognize, multimodal mobility for Beverly Hills is the best solution to problems like increased congestion and greenhouse gas emissions. And our General Plan’s Circulation Element talks  about making streets safe for road users. But it’s just talk if no policy supports it. Indeed collisions injure too many non-motor travelers on city streets. Bike-involved collisions account for ten percent of total collisions, for example, which is too many since people on bicycles make up less than 1% of all road users. Worse, in Beverly Hills nearly 300 collisions every year are hit-and-run. Where are the policies to address these problems?

We know from other cities that bicycle lanes and similar state-approved safety improvements not only make cyclists safer, they make cyclists feel safer too. And that encourages more of us to take a bicycle instead of a car – particularly women who often say they feel particularly vulnerable sharing the streets with harried drivers.

Yet facilities like bicycle lanes, bike ‘boxes,’ and bike-priority signaling find no welcome in Beverly Hills. Though we have a Bicycle Master Plan that calls for a bike route network, the plan dates from 1977 (as in ‘disco’ era 1977) and has yet to be revisited in the five years since our General Plan called for an update.

The First Step to Safer Streets is a A Real Bike Plan

Since 2010 Better Bike has called for the creation of a plan and implementation of programs and improvements that would make cycling safe. We’ve asked for dedicated bike lanes, intersection improvements, safety signage, and bike parking – all measures that we see in other cities that signals a bike-friendly environment – but to no avail. Why can’t we create streets that are safe for kids and adults biking to school, work, and shops?

Well we can. We need only look back to that 1970-era plan for guidance. From it we can begin to discuss what could be the citywide bike route network that we need. Here’s our first draft of what a comprehensive bicycle network should look like:

Bike routes Bevery Hills proposed map

A bike network in the making: Santa Monica Boulevard and Charleville provide east-west through routes while Beverly and Crescent drives afford north-south travel. Major points of access to surrounding cities come at the western gateway, Burton Way in the east, Sunset to the north and Beverly to the south.

We believe that at a minimum a Beverly Hills bike route network should include:

  • Routes that connect our five city schools and our key business districts;
  • Pavement markings and signage that show motorists and cyclists alike how to safely traverse major intersections;
  • Marked bike lanes on key corridors and shared-lane markings called “sharrows” on all secondary streets;
  • Bicycle racks where people need them and bike rack ‘corrals’ at high bike traffic points;
  • City-sponsored riding skills & road safety classes for all age groups and integrated into our Summer recreation program; and,
  • Changes to transportation and development policies to discourage auto commuting and encourage mass transit with the bicycle providing the proverbial ‘last mile’ connection between work, home, and transit.

Where Are We Now?

Four years ago our Traffic & Parking Commission created an ad-hoc Bike Plan Update committee to bring our 1977-era Bicycle Master Plan into the modern era, but it has made no recommendations. Three years ago, staff began to talk about more bicycle racks, but the fewer-than-25 to be installed haven’t yet found a place on our our sidewalks. No sign advises riders and drivers to share the road. Not even a simple city webpage offers safe-riding tips. We haven’t come a long way baby.

By calling attention to the safety hazards of cycling in Beverly Hills, we hope to highlight the challenges of simply choosing to ride a bike here. In the face of intransigent city officials and a population unschooled in the joys and practical benefits of cycling, have you any suggestions to offer? Let us know.

Recent Posts

Would You Double Down on Yesterday’s Planning Paradigm?

Los Angeles intersectionToday the Los Angeles Times ran an op-ed critical of efforts to plan for multimodal mobility. Titled, ‘Mr. Mayor, L.A. is not Stockholm,’ by 29-year Santa Monica resident Bruce Feldman. “As I’m sure you know, cyclists make up just 2% of all road traffic…[yet] your road diet would make congestion in our expansive region much worse than it already is,” the writer says of the city’s new mobility policy. Such measures will diminish quality-of-life, he adds, yet paradoxically he finds his cure to the region’s mobility morass in the very policies that today ail us.Why highlight an op-ed that rehearses stale ideas? Because it repeats a spurious argument we hear all the time from critics: equal access to roads for all road users is a giveaway to those who bike and a takeaway from those who drive. As if a motorist’s right-to-the-road – the whole road – were granted by the divine. (The crux of his complaint seems that he simply doesn’t want to share the road.)

We believe that this is the wrong way to frame transportation challenges and choices. Mobility is not the zero-sum game that opponents of road diets and bicycle lanes say it is. On the contrary, only steps that increase access for all users will make our transportation system(s) more efficient and, as important, more safe for road users. We think about it as an intermediate step toward the urban future we envision. We’re not there yet, but we won’t get there without sensible mobility policies. Have a read and then scroll down for our rebuttal.

This is not Mr. Feldman’s first rodeo. In a previous op-ed titled, ‘From Santa Monica, the lament of an “urban villager,”‘ he objected to increased residential densities (a key element of Santa Monica’s embrace of the ‘urban village’ concept). “My beachside community’s downtown core works fine for those who can afford to live there,” he lamented in January of 2014. “They can walk from their $4,000-a-month studio apartments in the hip center of town to their choice of half a dozen coffee joints, and they can pick up the latest fashions on the way so they’ll look good when they get there.”

Well, that sounds pretty good to us. If Santa Monica’s policies are making the city so desirable to, well, the desirables, then we say Beverly Hills needs a bit of magical thinking too.

Feldman also took potshots at those who ride a bike because, evident to him, we clog his roads. And we misbehave! We ride either too fast or too slow; ride in the middle of the lane or alongside stopped traffic; and of course we blow every stop sign (a favorite bugaboo of critics who themselves undoubtedly obey every traffic control).

“Of course, sometimes we’re forced to drive — say when we need to buy food from a nearby grocery store,” he said in his first op-ed (with emphasis added). “Then we have to run a gantlet of empowered cyclists.” Empowered! Sounds like the ‘bicycle lobby‘ is making some impressive gains of which we weren’t aware.

Then as today, he can’t win! On one hand he’s “forced” to drive on city streets; on the other, officials are making that journey even more onerous by squeezing his roadways so others can use the blacktop. By helpfully offering Mayor Garcetti a menu of recommended options (like making main boulevards one-way to facilitate throughput and expanding surface parking to accommodate those who, like him, are “forced” to drive) he’s really just pleading to maintain the status quo – a century-long auto-centric planning paradigm that got us into this mess. “I’ll have some hair of the dog that bit me please!” he seems to say.

Our Reply to Mr. Feldman

To the Editor:

In ‘Mr. Mayor, L.A. is not Stockholm,” Santa Monica resident Bruce Feldman objects to increased residential density and contemporary mobility measures like ‘road diets’ and bus-only lanes. He says they exacerbate traffic congestion. I’m a walker, bicycle rider, and drive, too, and I find travel inconvenient. It’s often hazardous too.
Yet would Mr. Feldman double-down on the policies that over time have brought us to a near-standstill on the Westside today? I fail to see how eight lanes of one-way travel, with increased traffic throughput and higher speeds, will improve our quality-of-life. We’ll see more devastating crashes, that’s for sure. He seems to recommend as the cure more of that which ails us.

Most planners know better. This metro region will welcome millions of newcomers in the coming decades, each of whom requires housing and transportation options that make travel not only more efficient but safer too. Consult the recent Los Angeles Times analysis of county-wide crash injuries and fatalities to see that the hazards we walkers and riders face every day are not a bug but a feature: the’ve been engineered-in the design of our roadways. That must change.

We can no longer afford to view city streets as merely a playground for motorists. Indeed planners  150 years ago recognized that city streets are our greatest of public spaces. And cities including Santa Monica acknowledge as much in city plans. We must recover them not only for safe travel for road users but as an opportunity to collectively enjoy one of the greatest of human achievements, the city.

As Mr. Feldman observed back in early 2014 in this very paper, newcomers to Santa Monica’s downtown “can walk from their $4,000-a-month studio apartments in the hip center of town to their choice of half a dozen coffee joints, and they can pick up the latest fashions on the way so they’ll look good when they get there.” That sounds great! A different approach to urbanization seems to be working very well for Santa Monica.

And today in your pages Mr. Feldman continues to celebrate the Los Angeles of old and, for good measure, then contrasts it with Stockholm, among the world’s most beautiful (and livable) cities. Yet the Stockholm of his description, characterized by a “compact, well-defined central downtown business and shopping core with a large number of residential units,” suggests the Swedes are doing something right too.

Meanwhile, in the Los Angeles metro region we must daily accommodate the diminishing returns of an outmoded approach to urban planning, one based on principles more than a half-century old and less-relevant to today’s challenges than ever. And we want to double-down on that?

I have some advice for Mr. Feldman. I suggest you relocate to Beverly Hills if you want to bear-hug yesterday’s planning paradigm. Here you will share our civic leaders’ continuing embrace of mid-20th century auto-centric planning policies. Here you will enjoy every day the congestion that it has wrought. And here you can sit comfortably in your car, queued at a light or stop sign, while “smug urbanites” pass you by on a bicycle.

  1. Hazardous Intersections That Need a Safety Upgrade TODAY Leave a reply
  2. New Ambassador Program Promises Smiles. Unless You’re Homeless! Leave a reply
  3. Say Goodbye to Santa Monica Boulevard Bike Lanes [recap] 11 Replies
  4. Construction Mitigation in Beverly Hills #FAILS Riders Comments Off on Construction Mitigation in Beverly Hills #FAILS Riders
  5. Beverly Hills Intersections May be Hazardous to Your Health Comments Off on Beverly Hills Intersections May be Hazardous to Your Health
  6. Santa Monica Boulevard Lanes Returns to Council Comments Off on Santa Monica Boulevard Lanes Returns to Council
  7. LA Sizzles But Beverly Hills Sees Scant Tech-Sector Interest Comments Off on LA Sizzles But Beverly Hills Sees Scant Tech-Sector Interest
  8. NIMBYs Whiffed on Bike Lanes But Killed the Dog Park Comments Off on NIMBYs Whiffed on Bike Lanes But Killed the Dog Park
  9. Tracking Hazards and Collisions: Maps and More Maps! Comments Off on Tracking Hazards and Collisions: Maps and More Maps!
  10. Are You a ‘Team Player’? Traffic Commission Has Two Vacancies Comments Off on Are You a ‘Team Player’? Traffic Commission Has Two Vacancies
  11. Our 1977 Bicycle Master Plan: Will It Ever Be Updated? Comments Off on Our 1977 Bicycle Master Plan: Will It Ever Be Updated?
  12. Is a Mandatory Bike Helmet Law the Answer? Comments Off on Is a Mandatory Bike Helmet Law the Answer?
  13. Beverly Hills OKs Bike-share Feasibility Study Comments Off on Beverly Hills OKs Bike-share Feasibility Study