New California Bill Will Let L.A. Squeeze in More Bike Lanes, Sans Environmental Review

By Simone Wilson Tue., Aug. 28 2012 at 3:00 PM

Ted Soqui

Will Sacramento let city transportation officials go rogue?

Although they're hard to hear over the impassioned roar of cycling advocates at L.A. City Hall, some local homeowners and car drivers are freaking out over AB 2245, a feel-good state bill pitched by Assemblyman Cameron Smyth (R-Santa Clarita) as a fast track to a greener Los Angeles County.

Jim O'Sullivan, president of the Miracle Mile Residential Association, says of the moment he accidentally discovered the bill: "I just went ballistic."

That's because, if approved by Governor Jerry Brown, it will exempt any new bike lane that doesn't interfere with street parking...

... from undergoing an environmental review (EIR), as would be otherwise mandated under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA).

Assemblyman Smyth, its author, argues that bike lanes are as environmentally friendly as an infrastructure project can get -- so why would they ever need a so-called "environmental" review?

LADOT Bike Blog via Flickr

Painting the city green, by any means necessary.

Because of his squeaky-green reasoning, AB 2245 is the sole survivor out of three last-minute attempts by the Legislature to unravel CEQA -- the only one that got past fierce California environmentalists and made it to Gov. Brown's desk during this home stretch. (In case you're in the dark, right now is gutting-and-amending time in Sacramento. That's because the last possible moment for state politicians to approve their bills for this session will be Friday, Aug. 31, at midnight.)

While Smyth is correct in a very literal sense -- yeah, OK, bikes are awesome for the environment -- CEQA is in place to ensure that a project be closely examined for its potential impacts on human society, such as traffic flow and overall quality of life.

And the particular type of bike lanes that will get a free pass under AB 2245 -- those that don't require street widening, just restriping -- tend to have an especially huge impact on all those other evil people on the road.

You know, the 99 percent of us who don't (or can't) bike to work.

It's pretty simple: The more space L.A. sets aside on its roads for bicycles, the less space there will be for cars to flow freely. This could become a real problem on streets like Westwood or Hoover, which barely move at rush hour as is.

But the bill is ultra-convenient for the L.A. Department of Transportation, currently faced with installing a daunting 1,680 miles worth of bike lane, as promised to the cycling zealots by L.A. Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa in 2011. At LADOT's current bike-lane construction rate of 40 miles per year, however, the mayor will be 93 years old before his promise comes true.

So Assemblyman Smyth offered a quick fix: Why not whiz right past that pesky EIR stage, straight to the road diet?

His plan would likewise be a huge help for the L.A. County Metropolitan Transportation Authority's own political bicycle ambitions, Smyth explains in his bill analysis:

"The County of Los Angeles just recently approved an ambitious plan to add 832 miles of new bikeways. Many of these will be of the Class II variety where simple restriping is all that is needed to connect communities for nonmotorized travel."

O'Sullivan, however, feels that bike lanes are already getting jammed through the public-input process, even without a fast-track from Sacramento.

Hancock Park resident and L.A. City Hall watchdog Jack Humphreville agrees. The only community outreach that the city has done for the lanes so far, he says, is to conduct low-profile meetings at which "they're preaching to us. They're not taking our input."

So, although Smyth's bill would require less exhaustive "traffic and safety impact assessments" to be conducted in place of EIRs, O'Sullivan doubts they'll address any real issues -- such as existing highway congestion and the displacement of cars onto smaller streets in packed neighborhoods like his own.

Remove EIRS from the equation altogether, says Humphreville, and "we won't have the ability to get any idea of what the traffic impact [of bike lanes] will be in our neighborhood. It's sort of a slam, bam, thank you ma'am."

[@simone_electra / swilson@laweekly.com / @LAWeeklyNews]

Tags:

bike lanes, cycling, EIR, environmental review, traffic congestion

We Recommend

nick528

I find your opposition to this bill completely bizarre. More bike lanes are a good thing. Spending less money and wasting time on "reviews" are ridiculous. I'm 100% in favor of this bill... let it roll!

craigweber78

Leave it to the LA Weekly to make the streamlining of bike lanes a hysterical threat to suburban car-oriented life in LA as we know it. Circa 1972. The only way we are every going to alleviate traffic congestion in this city of 3.8 million people is if we can take practical steps toward other forms of mobility. It should not take half a decade and years of superfluous study to install a bike lane. I have been cycling to work for seven years now, and having bike lanes present makes the commute significantly safer and easier, and there is an obvious correlation between these two factors and getting others to cycle.

jeff.jacobberger

2 Like

I am a member of Los Angeles' Bicycle Advisory Committee. Jim O'Sullivan's and Jack Humphreville's objections have nothing to do with CEQA and environmental review, and everything to do with objections to bicycling.

In January 2012, I sent an e-mail to Jack Humphreville about the possibility of installing bike lanes leading to Larchmont Village, relating an incident where a motorist on Larchmont tried to run me off the road. His response--and I quote--"bike riders should walk their bikes."

Jim O'Sullivan didn't "accidentally discover" this bill. He learned about it because he was listening by phone to a meeting of the City Council Transportation Committee, and I mentioned it. How else do people learn about legislation other than by participating in the public process? I guess Mr. O'Sullivan expects a personal letter or phone call about every piece of legislation that is introduced.

Moreover, as a member of the Mid City West Community Council, I have on numerous occasions urged the neighborhood council to support studying implementing bike projects (some bike lanes, others not) on streets designated in the Bike Plan, such as San Vicente, Rosewood, Hauser and 6th Street. On every occasion, Mr. O'Sullivan has angrily opposed even studying these issues. On every occasion, the neighborhood council in Mr. O'Sullivan's neighborhood has supported bicyclists.

It is as if Ms. Wilson had written an article about fracking and spoken only to oil and gas companies.

Finally, has anyone at the LA Weekly even read the bill? It exempts some bike lane projects from the formal CEQA process, but in place of CEQA requires the "lead agency" to "(1) Prepare an assessment of any traffic and safety impacts of the project and include measures in the project to mitigate potential vehicular traffic impacts and bicycle and pedestrian safety impacts.(2) Hold noticed public hearings in areas affected by the project to hear and respond to public comments." That might be streamlined review, but it is hardly the absence of environmental review

uberfahr

With all due respect to the "99% who don't or can't ride a bike to work," this article reflects the kind of misunderstood entitlement that the "1%" car-driving population sometimes has. To say that "CEQA is also in place to ensure that a project be closely examined for its potential impacts on human society, such as traffic flow and overall quality of life" is a silly in this context. If car drivers actually paid for the use of the roads used on a pay-per-use basis (e.g., wireless tolls), then there might be something to stand upon. But as it is, non-car-drivers (bicyclists, pedestrians, public transportation users) get to pay for these roads even though they never use them -- AND are subjected to the death, pollution, mayhem, noise, congestion, and general degradation of life as we know it.

I think it's time for car drivers like this author to stop their constant whining about their stupid needs that are plummeting the world into (scientifically verifiable) disaster -- economic, ecological, health, and sociological. Time to get OUT OF THE CAR AND TAKE A DEEP BREATH AND GET REAL. Cars suck.

cskidd

1 Like

"So, although Smyth's bill would require less exhaustive "traffic and safety impact assessments" to be conducted in place of EIRs, O'Sullivan doubts they'll address any real issues -- such as existing highway congestion and the displacement of cars onto smaller streets in packed neighborhoods like his own."

Oh, so Jim is an expert in CEQA law? Who knew? He couldn't just be tossing out baseless speculation, could he? And the Weakly wouldn't publish baseless speculation, right? Cuz you guys are a respectable publication, right?

rakmas

Simone Wilson, you are an absolute idiot. As is obviously also Jim O'Sullivan. Making car lanes narrower does not impede the traffic flow. If just make the lanes narrower.