…the current plan isn’t even scratching the surface of what is required to make it a reality.
The plan describes a proposal for “an ambitious 1,684 mile bikeway system”. This number is clearly important as it appears in particularly large print in the document. Apparently this will “build off the existing 334 miles that have been installed over the past thirty plus years”. Does that indicate that the rate of cycle path building over the last thirty years has been 10 miles per year ? Well, actually, no it doesn’t.
And what else does the document say ? Well, they make a point of dividing cyclists into three categories - Advanced / Experienced, Basic / less confident, Children with or without their parents. There is a suggestion that parallel facilities will be built for these different types of cyclists.
This is a fundamental error. To build down for inexperienced cyclists is a waste of time. Good cycling infrastructure suits all types of cyclists. Infrastructure which isn’t good enough for the experienced to use for efficient journeys without problems definitely is not good enough for the inexperienced to use either. This is doubly ridiculous when there clearly isn’t enough of a budget to build one good network, let along three.
The Netherlands, which remember only has a population slightly larger than the urban area of Los Angeles, now has 29000 km of high quality completely separate cycle path. In addition there is an unknown length of lesser quality touristic separated paths, 5000 km of on road cycle lane and many thousands of kilometres of road which have been prioritized for bikes.
read more: aviewfromthepath, 05.09.11.
FUCKING DISAPPOINTING, LOS ANGELES. But then, what should’ve I expected..
***I haven’t gotten around to reading San Diego’s Bike Plan yet, but now I know what sort of things to expect.. >__>;;