If you’ve been waiting for Beverly Hills to install bike racks, we’ve got good news and bad. The good news is that the city may move ahead on three initiatives: racks for city properties, installations in commercial districts, and a rack-on-request program. This week the Traffic & Parking Commission discussed the particulars. The bad news is that the Commission continued the discussion until September, which means we’re approaching three years since the Commission formed a bike committee to implement just this kind of improvement but with scant progress to show.
Last week the Traffic & Parking Commission took public comment about the five corridors identified by the Bike Plan Update Committee for potential bike-friendly improvements. Today the full Commission met in special session to determine the committee’s recommendation to City Council. The good news: The 3-2 split Traffic & Parking Commission recommended three corridors for possible bike-friendly improvements. The bad news: the commission declined to recommend the two most congested routes, Beverly and Charleville, and the majority expressed concerns with even the three routes that they did recommend. Let’s recap this important advisory vote.
Now that Traffic & Parking Commission has recommended three of five proposed Pilot program routes, the action shifts to City Council where bike improvements should be discussed later in June. Council is not bound by the Commission recommendation, however, which is a good thing because cyclists got only three-fifths of the half-loaf of measures put before this Commission. With its work wrapped, let’s take a longer view of the process that got us here before we look ahead in an upcoming post.
The Beverly Hills ad-hoc Bike Plan Update Committee met on January 18th to update the bike community on several projects of concern to cyclists: Santa Monica Boulevard reconstruction and several efforts related to bike facilities. Here we will focus on the Bike Routes Pilot initiative to create bike facilities on Beverly Hills streets. While promising, we feel that the process to date has fallen short of community-side expectations, however. Communication is largely one-way and attendee feedback seems not to make it into materials.