UNCOMMON CENTS
By Alex Thompson
As the city, state and federal government burn money that doesn't exist, City Councilmembers Bill Rosendahl & Paul Koretz are pushing LA to support an extension of the beach bike path at $15 million per mile.
Cy clists' have expressed preference for on-street facilities in the city, but the two West LA councilman, who both serve on the Budget & Finance Committee, are supporting this expensive off-street facility, outside the city, which will serve residents in the Palisades, Malibu, and northern Santa Monica.
According to the LA Chief Legislative Analyst (CLA), LADOT spent $740,000 designing this project in the 90s but the County rejected the project in 1995. Since then the project sat on the shelf collecting dust. Now, in a motion sponsored by Rosendahl, and seconded by Koretz, the City proposes to "include in the City's 2009-2010 Federal Legislative Program SPONSORSHIP and/or SUPPORT for legislation and/or administrative action to provide funding to extend the Marvin Braude Bike Path" two miles, at a cost of $30 million. (CLA Report) [LINK]
For reference, bike lanes cost $28k per mile, according to p. 175 of the City's draft Bike Plan. [LINK] By contrast, the proposal to extend the Marvin Braude Bike Path two miles is 535 times more expensive per mile, at $15 million per mile.
All around the country cities are dusting off "shovel ready" projects to apply for stimulus funds. The question becomes then, is this project the face that LA would like to put forward? While Long Beach makes incredible strides with a few million dollars, should the City of LA spend exorbitant sums to connect two patches of beach? Do we want to be the city with the "Bike Path To Nowhere?"
Ted Rogers of BikingInLA [LINK] supports the project. He argues, "There is no local or state money at risk; this is simply a hail mary pass to the feds to see if they will fund it." Since it's federal money, why not?
I believe we have a responsibility to do something useful with federal money. If those federal funds are purely discretionary, then they could be used to put doctors and nurses through school. Or to assist families in need. Or to pay for health research.
If those funds are earmarked for transportation, then they can be used for projects that have a greater return on investment. Projects which don't cost more than ten million dollars per mile.
As Joe Linton puts it "If I were the city and I had $30M in my pocket, then there are a multitude of better ways to spend that money making LA better for bikes."
While I'd like to see LA get more federal money, I think it's asinine to apply for federal money that our neighbors may also submit applications for, when our application is so cost ineffective.
Rogers argues that the project "will allow cyclists to bypass one of the most dangerous sections of PCH." He concludes that the project "could save lives — and probably will, if it gets built." [LINK]
I don't disagree - it's a tough section to ride and most years cyclists are killed on PCH. But while a life is extremely valuable, saving lives is often very cheap.
For instance, the Backbone Bikeway Network [LINK] - a proposal by the Bike Working Group to connect all of LA with bike lanes - would cost, in the worst case scenario, $10 million, for 200 miles of inner city bike lane. That will save many more lives and that's a cost effective proposal.
Furthermore, in the unlikely event that the Feds approve the Bike Path To Nowhere, it could displace worthy projects, which are highly cost effective, and which save more lives. In other words, in the final calculus this project could cost lives.
The big question remains - why does the project have the very round $30,000,000 price tag?
According to the CLA, LADOT proposes "to provide a breathtaking view of the ocean". Doing that, according to DOT's Bureau of Engineering "requires the design to provide an elevated structure through the beach corridor, the project cost is estimated to be $30,000,000."
Aha! It's costly because this is no normal bike path, it's a flying bike path, which will swoop and float above the frothy waves.
Meanwhile, if we wanted to execute a cost effective solution, which would make cyclists safer, we could pursue bike lanes on PCH, which would cost . . . $28k per mile. Throw in some barriers, perhaps a signal for cyclists, and you're still well under $4 million.
In 2008, 23% of 1581 bike collisions were hit & runs, and more than 75% of those were felony hit and run. Cyclists need help, but not help at any cost.
The City needs help too - it needs leaders who can evaluate a project such as this, and make the call about whether it is cost effective. When two councilman, both of who sit on the Budget & Finance Committee, make the wrong call, I get a sinking feeling about LA's future.
(Dr. Alex Thompson is a bike activist residing in West LA, and he's always hopping mad about something. Follow him at WestsideBikeside.com, or email him at
This email address is being protected from spam bots, you need Javascript enabled to view it
) -cw
CityWatch
Vol 8 Issue 10
Pub: Feb 5, 2010
|
