Beverly Hills Bike Route Pilot Program

Beverly Hills Pilot Bike Route Program

Crescent Drive sharrow

Pilot Program Class II bicycle lane on North Crescent Drive.

Nearly fifty years after the twentieth-century bicycle renaissance, cycling is popular again. We have returned to the bicycle because it is a pleasurable, healthy, and less-polluting alternative to the automobile. And it’s a heck of a lot more efficient than sitting in Beverly Hills traffic congestion.

But riding a bicycle in Beverly Hills is not without peril. The city has little dedicated infrastructure and our Bicycle Master Plan, which forty-years ago envisioned a citywide network of bicycle routes, has sat on the shelf – it’s promise unrealized.

The latter-day bicycle boom even passed by our General Plan, which was updated in 2010 but inexplicably kept that old plan on the books. As cities around Beverly Hills adopted new bike plans and encouraged cycling, we sat on our hands. Our transportation division couldn’t even be bothered to post a single ‘ride safe’ tip on the city website.

Approved Pilot program bike routes map

The city’s one and only stab at bike infrastructure came a few years ago and it was called a ‘pilot’ bike route program. It included a few segments of Class II bicycle lanes and a few blocks of sharrows. But it was neither a product of a plan nor a down-payment on that citywide network. The improvements stand apart from any of our other mobility measures, the white paint fading like a metaphor for policymakers’ concern for the safety of riders.

More About the Pilot Program

In November of 2011 Transportation officials presented to advocates a feasibility study of possible routes with four candidates: the east/west corridors of Carmelita and Charleville and the north/south corridors of Beverly and Crescent Drive. All were recommended by cyclist-advocates who participated in several Pilot meetings with staff.

Bike Route Pilot program map

Candidate Pilot routes…

After those meetings concluded, transportation division staff then added a fifth route, Burton Way. Burton way was low-hanging fruit: it was plenty wide and easy and relatively safe to ride without lanes, so installing them was an easy add-on.

Supporters came out overwhelmingly in favor of all of the candidate routes (the more the better) but  northside homeowners feared that bicycle lanes (or ‘routes,’ or ‘paths’ as the terminology was used interchangeably) would harm their property values. With some public input in hand, the Traffic and Parking Commission took a recommendation to Council that included misguided recommendations.

Approved Pilot program bike routes map

…But the routes actually approved by Council.

When City Council City Council gave the nod to the Pilot program in mid-2012 only two route segments survived: Burton Way and Crescent Drive (at right). But only limited segments of each were slated for the improvement while City Council declined to make improvements south of Wilshire where much cross-city traffic flows. While Crescent Drive north of Santa Monica Boulevard would be striped with bicycle lanes, a few more blocks south of Santa Monica up to Wilshire would get only ‘sharrows.’ This was a mixed bag but what do you want when a program like this gets ahead of a mobility plan?

Where did the Pilot program planning go wrong? Let us count the ways!

Proposed Pilot bike routes map

The proposed Pilot routes (in red) before whittling down by the commission and City Council

Reductive route selection. The Traffic and Parking Commission voted to leave the busiest routes like Charleville and Beverly off the table. Subsequently, City Council  whittled the three candidate routes down to two: Crescent Drive and Burton Way. Few of the advocates’ many ideas for the pilot program made it to the final program.

For more information check out the Better Bike recaps of meetings with cycling advocates:

Only a few treatment options were considered. Where the 1977 Bicycle Master Plan specified parking removal as an option, city consultant Fehr & Peers recommended only wider streets for treatments so as not to displace curbside parking. The less-wide segments were considered only for sharrows (shared-lane markings). Never on the table were innovations like road diets, bike boxes, and bicycle boulevards like we see in other cities. View the presentation from Fehr & Peers and the feasibility study diagrams for more information on options.

Ancillary measures to make cycling safe, or even to encourage it, were not part of the program. Our city can do much to make cycling convenient in Beverly Hills. Indeed getting people to ride to shops and work would alleviate some congestion (as our plans recommend). But there were no bicycle racks installed as part of this program, for example. Nor was any safety signage installed.

The Pilot program improvements may be temporary. A ‘pilot’ program by definition is one from which we hope to learn. This initiative should teach us what works and what doesn’t. And City Council did stipulate a 12-month review period for these improvements. But we won’t learn much because the bike lanes went where cyclists really didn’t need them; and where we did – like Crescent near Whole Foods – we only painted sharrows.

[Update: Council did review the pilot improvements after the twelve months elapsed and decided to keep the improvements. Mysteriously northside opposition did not raise any objection at that time. And last I checked their property values have increased about 5% a year.]

Ultimately the Pilot program may not really inform our understanding about the potential for bike facilities in Beverly Hills to make streets more safe. These lightly-used routes aren’t where the crashes are likely to occur. In fact, during the time since the pilot improvements were installed the city took no step to repair the curbside potholes and grates that long made North Santa Monica the single most perilous ride for those who bike.

Recent Posts

Beverly Hills Puts the Brake on Shared-Mobility Devices

Beverly Hills City Council adopted a total ban on shared-mobility devices effective immediately. The sweeping action came at a special meeting called 24 hours prior. The ad-hoc regulation targeted device companies like Bird and Lime but would ban all ‘dockless’ devices (including motorized bicycles). The action prohibits any device from being placed in any public right-of-way or on public property, operated in any public-right-of-way or on public property, or offered for use anywhere in the City. Penalties include impound and fines. Read the press release.

City Council is ambivalent about shared-mobility devices. On one hand, nearly all councilmembers acknowledge that emerging devices like scooters could be a means to reduce auto trips and get the city to a more environmentally-friendly footing. They are also less impactful where congestion is concerned, councilmembers say.

But there was some concern that scooters simply displaced walking trips (rather than substantially change a traveler’s mode choice). Councilmember John Mirisch observed that walking was a “healthy intervention” in the context of Westside mobility, and wondered if scooters are helpful in that regard. In a discussion punctuated by no data but plenty of anecdotes, the one recurring theme was of underage teens joyriding on sidewalks without helmets.

Of somewhat greater concern was that dockless devices present a clutter problem if not properly regulated. As the user can simply leave a device anywhere, including on sidewalks and private property, they can pose a hazard for pedestrians. Clearly that problem was already on the mind of councilmembers and the community members who spoke of the need for regulation. There was concern expressed about danger to dogs on the sidewalk. The latter anecdote was a reminder that the discussion is really animated by device use in our most congested areas like the business triangle and south Beverly Drive.

How to manage these devices when much of the responsibility falls to the user? As the Traffic and Parking Commission’s earlier discussion touched upon, the introduction of dockless devices outside of a regulatory framework suggests no obvious answers to key questions that would concern a municipality. Can scooter ‘chargers’ enter private property to retrieve them? What is the city’s authority to impound scooters when left on public property? What is the city’s liability for a carelessly-discarded Bird?

Of greatest concern was safety: what recourse would a pedestrian have if a scooter operator caused an injury and simply fled? Is that a hit-and-run? And even if the operator didn’t flee, who’s covering medical expenses, if any?

None of these questions occasioned by a haphazard rollout of shared-devices is unique to Beverly Hills. Indeed other cities have grappled with the unexpected presence of a novel mode that is catching on quickly. Complicating the issue is that Bird, for its part, says it has not rollout out service in Beverly Hills. The company claims it does not deposit scooters on city property. It holds a business license, but claims not to do business here. That was a matter of some dispute as trips can originate and end in Beverly Hills (at least until the ban took effect).

Then again, that’s precisely why there was such vehement pushback from all of the councilmembers. The problem of managing (to say nothing of regulating) a shared-mobility device like a scooter falls to City Hall. And the associated impacts and safety hazards were not addressed beforehand by the companies even though the issues and hazards were already known to the device providers.

Ambivalence Yields to a Ban

Mayor Julian GoldThree of five councilmembers appeared ready to slap a ban on operations at the outset of the discussion. They revealed their position with no uncertainty at the top of their comments. “six months, a year, forever, whatever it takes,” said Mayor Gold of a proposed ban. Clearly he was leading the charge. There were two votes to hold off on a ban. John Mirisch didn’t favor a ban for practical reasons, he said. Can the city ban the use of scooters while only passing through the city? The supporter of autonomous vehicles didn’t see how a ban would meet the city’s goals for multimodal mobility either.

Councilmember Bob Wunderlich is also a supporter of multimodal mobility (and was the third needed vote to stripe Santa Monica Boulevard with a high-visibility bicycle lane). He initially opposed a ban, but ultimately supported one because the city had been given no time to prepare, and because our infrastructure is not ready. Wunderlich’s vote was the necessary 4th (an swing) vote the urgency ordinance needed. But his was no hasty capitulation; his positions are always well-considered and his position on the ban evolved over the course of the 2-hour special meeting.

The greatest opprobrium was heaped on Bird and Lime (as prominent examples) by Mayor Gold and councilmembers Lester Friedman and Lili Bosse. Gold stressed safety but appeared as incensed that the devices were deployed without any company reaching out to the city prospectively. There was no talk about an agreement, or a business license, or even an inquiry as to how these devices, and the technology, would find a place in the city’s mobility plans. Beverly Hills is currently undertaking a complete streets plan process which includes an emphasis on ‘networked’ vehicles.

The Council’s shared view in this regard was not helped by Bird’s representative who acknowledged that this kind of rollout is part of the business model: to force the hand of the locality. Councilmember Friedman picked up on the theme. “You can call that disruption, I guess,” he said, arching an eyebrow at the handle that has attached to shared-mobility rollouts in the past (think: Uber). “The city can be disruptive to your business model.” He liked the ban.

(Indeed Bird used the Uber playbook that same day: the company’s users generated several hundred emails to City Council, with one hundred and thirty of them coming in the 12 hours after City Council signaled a ban might be forthcoming, and those emails were mostly alike. Council was not persuaded.) Friedman, an attorney himself, was concerned with user liability. He asked a question not raised earlier: do such devices mandate the state minimum for property damage and bodily harm? (No answer was forthcoming.)

Councilmember Lili Bosse was as offended about the rollout and as vocal in seeking a ban. Commerce and tourism are her twin constituencies. After a video aired at the meeting showed a blizzard of scooter-users descending on the triangle late at night, unmolested by police, it was not a far leap to imagine our international visitor-shoppers similarly accosted during daytime. It wouldn’t be tolerated at Century City mall, be sure, and the prospect is a non-starter here too.

Both the Council’s afternoon study session discussion (video) and the evening session where the ban was adopted aired many questions presented by the marriage of cheap, plentiful devices and app-driven ride-share technology. The City Attorney did his best to address questions about city liability, damages for injury, and broader concerns about safety when devices are carelessly operated, or left, on the sidewalks. But in the end the discussion really boiled down to regulation.

The three councilmembers most in favor of the ban all had served on the city’s Traffic and Parking Commission. There the remit includes oversight of ‘general traffic conditions’ as well as regulation of taxi franchises. The regulatory framework, they said, was a necessary first step.

I also attended the Traffic and Parking Commission meeting where shared-devices were first discussed (watch the video). My take from that meeting was that these billion-dollar corporations tend to take a casual approach to the problems posed by their devices. For example, when problems were suggested they said fixes were underway or about to be taken; there was evidently no effort to take lessons learned elsewhere and apply them in the device rollout here.

More problematic was these companies simply not anticipating the politics of the issue. The tone and tenor of the  City Council discussion reflected the divide. As the Mayor said, shortly after calling for a long, “even punitive,” ban on the devices, “You can ask for forgiveness later, but that doesn’t mean you’re going to get it.

Read the staff report and watch the Council video:

Here is the full text of the city’s press release.

Beverly Hills, CA – During a special meeting tonight, the Beverly Hills City Council voted 4-1 to prohibit certain shared mobility devices, specifically motorized scooters, within City limits.
The ordinance prohibits the devices from being placed in any public right-of-way or on public property, operated in any public-right-of-way or on public property, or offered for use anywhere in the City.
The majority of the Council cited concern for public safety and a lack of any advanced planning and outreach by the motorized scooter companies as the primary reasons for the new ordinance.
Beverly Hills Police will enforce a zero-tolerance policy on the use of motorized scooters throughout the City. This will include impounding the devices and issuing citations related to vehicle code violations resulting in fines.
The majority of the Council expressed an interest in meeting with representatives from the motorized scooter companies to establish clear guidelines for possible future use of the devices within the City.
The use of motorized scooters in Beverly Hills has dramatically increased in recent weeks with the Police Department issuing warnings and citations for riders not wearing helmets, driving on sidewalks in a business district or not possessing a valid driver’s license. Police have responded to several injury involved vehicle collisions involving motorized scooters. Police have also removed scooters from sidewalks and streets that obstructed the normal movement of traffic and created a hazard.

  1. Concerns About our Complete Streets Process Comments Off on Concerns About our Complete Streets Process
  2. Complete Streets Walk Audit Recap Comments Off on Complete Streets Walk Audit Recap
  3. Bike Skills via WeHo Bicycle Coalition & Mid City West CC Comments Off on Bike Skills via WeHo Bicycle Coalition & Mid City West CC
  4. Complete Streets Workshop #2 Recap Comments Off on Complete Streets Workshop #2 Recap
  5. Beverly Hills Complete Streets Needs You Comments Off on Beverly Hills Complete Streets Needs You
  6. Lend Your Voice to the Beverly Hills Complete Streets Plan Comments Off on Lend Your Voice to the Beverly Hills Complete Streets Plan
  7. Collision Injuries in Beverly Hills Sill Reach for Record Highs in 2017 1 Reply
  8. Complete Streets workshop #1 Recap Comments Off on Complete Streets workshop #1 Recap
  9. Mark Your Calendar: Complete Streets Workshop #1 Comments Off on Mark Your Calendar: Complete Streets Workshop #1
  10. Traffic Citations Reach Record Lows in Beverly Hills in 2016 Comments Off on Traffic Citations Reach Record Lows in Beverly Hills in 2016
  11. Collision Injuries Reach Record-Highs in Beverly Hills in 2016 Comments Off on Collision Injuries Reach Record-Highs in Beverly Hills in 2016
  12. Complete Streets Comes to Beverly Hills Comments Off on Complete Streets Comes to Beverly Hills
  13. Bike With Beverly Hills Mayor Lili Bosse This Sunday! Comments Off on Bike With Beverly Hills Mayor Lili Bosse This Sunday!
  14. Beverly Hills City Council UNANIMOUSLY OKs SM Blvd Bike Lanes 8 Replies