Locking Up Beverly Hills

0

I live in Beverly Hills, one of the best planned towns in the Southland. A century after Burton Green’s Rodeo Land and Water Co. subdivided the Rancho Rodeo de las Aguas, residents and visitors enjoy wide boulevards, curvaceous streets, walkable neighborhoods, and commercial districts characterized by small shops that leaven the big-retailer glitz – a textbook case of good town planning.

But all is not well in downtown Beverly Hills. Empty storefronts mar our charming, low-rise “taxpayer” retail blocks in the designated pedestrian district, and policymakers struggle to reduce our overall commercial vacancy rate of 13.3 percent. (It may approach 20 percent outside the Golden Triangle.)

When we study neighborhood retail in other cities, we understand that the key to a stable small-retailer base is human flow, not speeding traffic. Yet our transportation officials have long labored under the delusion that vehicular traffic translates into sales. To discount foot traffic, however, means that we suffer endless road congestion and diminished pedestrian and cyclist safety. We also sacrifice city services to subsidize our autocentric policy.

There is a better model: Cities across the country are reducing congestion and boosting retail (and community spirit) by encouraging a shift to nonmotorized modes of travel such as cycling and walking. Federal policy calls for it and state policy mandates it – yet Beverly Hills eschews it.

The single most cost-effective way to support multimodal mobility is the humble bike rack. For about $200 each plus the cost of installation – petty cash in any transportation budget – we could provide current and prospective cyclists with a convenient place to park, making shopping trips a delight instead of a frustration.

Unsafe streets

Beverly Hills has never rolled out the welcome mat for cyclists and stands alone in the Southland for refusing to support cycling safety or convenience. Our streets are demonstrably unsafe for two-wheeling, and we who want to shop locally can’t find a place to lock our bikes in this retail wonderland of 35,000 residents. No wonder bikes are chained to parking meters and trees.

Adjacent cities have rolled out that welcome mat, however. Los Angeles has seen an uptick in economic activity by rebranding neighborhoods as cyclist friendly with a few racks or a bike corral. Santa Monica practically rains new bike racks into retail districts, and aims to spur a further upsurge in cycling by painting bike lanes and opening the largest bike hub in the United States. West Hollywood is about to embark on a range of bike-friendly improvements, dropping $75,000 on racks alone.

Policymakers in these cities have gotten the message: The bike rack is a transportation-related enhancement. But Beverly Hills? Here, a bike rack installation is seen as a capital improvement project: conduct a study, go to policymakers for authorization and appropriation, then approve the contract. A Transportation Department staffer a few weeks ago suggested we might have to wait until the next fiscal year for even one new bike rack. No wonder we can’t stop and shop as we’d like!

Why the delay? We already have the guidance from our General Plan:

Create or collaborate on an interconnected transportation system that allows a shift in travel from private passenger vehicles to alternative modes, including public transit, ride-sharing, car-sharing, bicycling and walking. Before funding transportation improvements that increase vehicle miles traveled, consider alternatives such as increasing public transit or improving bicycle or pedestrian travel routes. (Circulation goal 2.10, “Interconnected Transit System.”)

Can we afford not to? We’ve built a score of public parking garages in the belief that luring more automobiles will somehow solve congestion problems. Yet we’re in hock to the tune of $2 million-plus annually to run them. And every credit card meter payment costs the city more than 20 percent in processing charges. If we’re not giving away public garage parking for free, we’re making a gift of every scrap of Beverly Hills asphalt to our parking meter contractor.

I’m beginning to wonder if it’s simply a cultural disconnect: Are 90210’s bureaucrats so deeply silo’d that they’re unable to recognize multimodal mobility as a 21st century solution? Our public works professionals and elected officials need to recognize that a bike rack isn’t a sop to cyclists but rather a cost-effective incentive that will shift customers from road-clogging cars to community- and commerce-friendly bikes – just as our plan requires.

It’s not as though we’re broke. Beverly Hills has money in the proverbial bank: $32,000 in Transportation Development Act, Article 3 funds for the bike and pedestrian improvements that we’re not making. Heck, we’ve not even claimed last year’s funds!

Beverly Hills is one of the most livable places in the L.A. area. We’re highly ranked as a walkable community. Yet we’re not making our streets safe for cycling, and we’re not picking the lowest of low-hanging fruits – the $200 bike rack – to make shopping here a pleasure instead of a pain.

Mark Elliot is a planning communications consultant and a small-business website designer. He has lived in Beverly Hills since 2007 and is the founder of Better Bike, a volunteer organization that has been working to make city streets safe for cyclists since 2010.

No posts to display