City of Culver City, California
Agenda Item Report
Meeting Date: 04/08/2013 Item Number: A-3
CITY COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM: Discussion of Policy Considerations Related to
Locating Bicycle Sharing Stations, Including the Example of Such a Station on
Washington Boulevard, and Direction to the City Manager Related Thereto.
Contact Person/Dept.: Helen
Kerstein/PW
Phone Number: (310) 253-5618
Fiscal Impact: Yes [] No [X] General Fund: Yes [] No [X]
Public Hearing: [] Action Item: [X] Attachments: [X]
Commission Action Required: Yes [] No [X] Date:
Public Notification: (E-mail) Meetings and Agendas – City Council (04/02/13); Culver
City Bicycle Coalition (04/03/13); Bicycle and Pedestrian Listserv (04/03/13).
Department Approval:
Charles D. Herbertson (03/27/13)
City Attorney Approval:
Carol Schwab (by H. Baker) (04/02/13)
Chief Financial Officer Approval:
Jeff Muir (04/02/13)
City Manager Approval:
John M. Nachbar (04/02/13)
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends that the City Council discuss policy considerations related to
locating bicycle sharing stations, including the types of bicycle facilities to be
installed in the vicinity of bicycle sharing stations. Staff also recommends that the
City Council discuss the example of bicycle facilities on Washington Boulevard
between National and Ince Boulevards and direct the City Manger as deemed
appropriate.
BACKGROUND:
Bicycle sharing programs complement public transit and other mobility modes by
enabling users to rent bicycles at one station and drop them off at another location.
Bicycle sharing programs typically appeal to riders taking short trips, with most
rentals lasting less than 30 minutes.
On the West Side of Los Angeles, there has been growing interest in bicycle
sharing. The Westside Cities Council of Governments (WSCCOG) has included
implementing a Westside bicycle sharing system in its work program and has taken
a role in coordinating and advancing bicycle sharing efforts. So far, with the support
of the WSCCOG Governing Board, the cities of Beverly Hills, Culver City, Santa
Monica and West Hollywood have issued a Request for Information (RFI) to obtain
information about a possible joint bicycle sharing program.
WSCCOG member cities have also taken other steps towards launching bicycle
sharing. The City of Santa Monica has secured two grants to fund the start-up of a City of Culver City, California
Agenda Item Report
bicycle sharing program. One of these grants includes capital funding for five
bicycle sharing stations in other WSCCOG cities. The City of Santa Monica also
plans to issue a Request for Proposals (RFP) and has offered to include alternatives
to expand the bicycle sharing program to other WSCCOG cities in the RFP. The
City of Los Angeles is pursuing another approach that does not require grant
funding. The City of Los Angeles is conducting a trial program in collaboration with a
vendor called Bicycle Nation. Under this program, the City of Los Angeles is issuing
revocable short-term permits for stations. Bicycle Nation is also planning to work
with Metro and Los Angeles County to install trial stations on properties within their
respective jurisdictions. Meanwhile, both Bicycle Nation and another vendor,
SoCal Cycle Share, have made unsolicited offers to the WSCCOG, and Bicycle
Nation has also made an unsolicited offer directly to the City of Culver City.
At the WSCCOG’s request, on October 22, 2012, staff requested direction from the
City Council on the topic of bicycle share. At that time, the City Council directed staff
to continue working regionally on this issue. Staff has continued to work with the
WSCCOG and has also met with staff from the City of Los Angeles to better
understand their approach.
Through this work, it has become clear that before moving forward, staff would
benefit from additional policy direction from the City Council related to locating
bicycle sharing stations, including the type of bicycle infrastructure that should be in
place prior to siting them. In particular, staff requests input on what type of bicycle
facility, if any, would be desired on Washington Boulevard between Ince Boulevard
and National Boulevard given the trade-offs that are discussed in the Discussion
section below.
Once the level of bicycle infrastructure that is desirable to support bicycle sharing on
Washington Boulevard and other relevant streets has been identified and a plan for
creating this infrastructure has been developed, staff expects to seek further input
from the City Council on whether the City Council would prefer to follow the
WSCCOG/City of Santa Monica (RFP) model or the City of Los Angeles (permit)
model (or whether an alternative path is preferred). Also at that time, and prior to
proceeding with creating a plan for establishing a program, staff will work further with
the City Attorney’s Office to determine whether advertising on bicycle stations is
acceptable and, if so, whether any amendments to the CCMC would be necessary.
DISCUSSION:
There are a variety of considerations when placing bicycle stations. One
consideration is space, since stations typically require between 11 ft. by 10 ft. and 11
ft. by 32 ft. (depending on the number of racks). Stations should also be convenient,
highly visible, and placed in locations that are likely to result in high demand, such
as adjacent to transit and popular destinations. Furthermore, stations should be
placed sufficiently close together to enable users to easily travel from one to
another. It is also desirable, when possible, for bicycle stations to be placed in areas City of Culver City, California
Agenda Item Report
with a robust on-street bicycle infrastructure in order to make riders feel more
comfortable and facilitate higher use of the system. Unfortunately, it is not always
simple to add on-street bicycle facilities to the existing street network in a built-out
city like Culver City. Sometimes facilities can only be added if lanes (including
parking, turn and through lanes) are narrowed and/or removed, which poses
potentially difficult choices and consequences.
Example of Washington Boulevard between Ince and National Boulevards
One prime example of the challenge involved in creating bicycle facilities in areas
that could be desirable for bicycle sharing is Washington Boulevard between Ince
Boulevard and National Boulevard. This is an important segment of street as it
provides the most direct connection between the two likely bicycle sharing station
locations: the Expo Light Rail Station and Downtown Culver City. Placing stations at
the Expo Light Rail Station and Downtown Culver City would link rail transit to a
major destination, thus facilitating first-last mile transit connections and potentially
attracting relatively high use.
Existing Conditions
Washington Boulevard between Ince Boulevard and National Boulevard is typically
60 ft. wide curb-to-curb and has a posted speed limit of 35 mph. Currently, there are
two through lanes in each direction. However, the details of the lane configurations
vary along the segment. Between Ince Boulevard and Higuera Street/Robertson
Boulevard, along with two travel lanes in each direction, there is a traversable center
left-turn lane and a parking lane on the north side of the street. Between Higuera
Street/Robertson Boulevard and National Boulevard, the traversable center left-turn
lane disappears, but there is parking on both sides of the street. Also, there are turn
pockets at intersections. Most notably, there is a left-turn lane and two right-turn
lanes at the westbound approach to the intersection of Ince Boulevard (the street
widens to approx. 65 ft. at this intersection).
Option 1: Sharrows
One option that the City Council could consider is the installation of Shared Lane
Markings (“Sharrows”). Sharrows are markings that are placed within travel lanes.
They help riders position themselves on a shared road and remind drivers to be
mindful of cyclists. Sharrows could be installed without requiring the modification of
the layout of the lanes. However, while sharrows may be helpful on this segment of
Washington Boulevard, they may not be sufficient to make the street appealing for
less confident cyclists, as they still require cyclists to share the road with cars.
Option 2: Bicycle Lanes
To maximize use by riders of all levels of skill and confidence, it would be preferable
from a cyclist’s perspective to create separate space in the road for bicycles in the
form of bicycle lanes along this stretch of Washington Boulevard. Unfortunately, the
addition of bicycle lanes raises some difficult trade-offs. Given the 60 ft. roadway
that is available through most of this street segment, securing the 10 ft. (5 ft. for City of Culver City, California
Agenda Item Report
each direction) necessary to add bicycle lanes would require one of the alternatives
outlined in the following table and would result in significant impacts on pedestrians,
vehicle capacity, trees and existing infrastructure, and/or large monetary costs:
Alternative Challenges/Impacts
•Remove one or more
travel lanes
•Reduces the capacity of the street to
carry motor vehicles (potential
environmental and development
impacts)
•Narrow sidewalks •Reduces pedestrian-friendliness
•Very high cost due to extensive
changes to public infrastructure
•Remove some parking
and eliminate center left-
turn lanes and
•Reduce lane widths or
drop bike lanes
approaching intersections
(but keep left-turn pockets)
•Impacts nearby businesses’ parking
•Reduces convenience of driveway
access
•Creates challenges for buses or cyclists
at intersections
•Remove some parking
and eliminate center left-
turn lanes and
•Eliminate left-turn pockets
approaching intersections
(including prohibiting left
turns during peak periods)
•Impacts nearby businesses’ parking
•Reduces convenience of driveway
access
•Impacts access to intersecting streets
Additionally, various options would need to be considered to create a comfortable
space for cyclists at the westbound approach of Washington Boulevard to Ince
Boulevard, as this location is complicated by the the curvature of the street, the left-
turn lane, and the dual right-turn lanes (serving through traffic due to the closure of
the Old Washington Boulevard alignment between Ince Boulevard and Culver
Boulevard at Main Street).
Conclusion
The example of Washington Boulevard demonstrates some of the potential trade-
offs and challenges associated with creating an on-street bikeway network in the
City that serves potential bicycle sharing locations. It should also be noted that
similar types of trade-offs exist if bicycle facilities are to be placed in other locations
near potential bicycle sharing stations, such as Culver Boulevard through
Downtown.
City of Culver City, California
Agenda Item Report
Given the significance of these trade-offs, staff would benefit from feedback on: 1)
what minimum level of on-street bicycle facilities should exist near bicycle sharing
stations (ex. bicycle lanes, bicycle routes/sharrows, or nothing), and 2) which trade-
offs should be considered to accommodate these facilities (lane width reductions,
removal of parking, removal of travel lanes, removal of turn lanes, etc.). Specifically,
any direction on the desirability of pursing the various options identified along
Washington Boulevard would be valuable.
FISCAL ANALYSIS:
This item is for discussion purposes. Based on the direction provided by the City
Council, staff will return with additional information on the costs of the options that
merit additional consideration, if any.
ATTACHMENT:
1. Presentation slides on bicycle sharing and example of Washington Boulevard
between National and Ince Boulevards
MOTIONS:
That the City Council:
1. Discuss policy considerations related to locating bicycle sharing stations,
including the example of Washington Boulevard between National and Ince
Boulevards; and,
2. Direct the City Manager as deemed appropriate.
MEETING DATE: 04/08/2013
AGENDA ITEM: Discussion of Policy Considerations Related to Locating
Bicycle Sharing Stations, Including the Example of Washington
Boulevard, and Direction to Staff.
ATTACHMENTS
Pages
1 Presentation slides on bicycle sharing and example
of Washington Boulevard between National and Ince
Boulevards
1-22
BICYCLE SHARING AND
WASHINGTON BLVD.
DISCUSSION AND INPUT ON POLICY
QUESTIONS
1Bicycle Sharing Background
• Westside Cities Council of Governments
• RFI
• Santa Monica grant and upcoming RFP
• Los Angeles
• Permit based process with Bike Nation
• Metro and LA County
• Culver City
• Participation with WSCCOG and discussion with LA
• Direction at October 22, 2012 Council meeting
2Considerations for Station Locations
• Space availability
• High demand locations (transit and destinations)
• Close enough together for a network
3Relationship to Bicycle Infrastructure
• Level of bike infrastructure necessary to serve stations
• Routes (signage only)?
• Sharrows?
• Bike lanes?
• Bike paths?
• Willingness to accept trade-offs to achieve that
infrastructure
• Reductions in lane width?
• Reductions in travel lanes?
• Reductions in parking?
• Affects on turn lanes?
4Example of Washington Blvd. – Existing
Conditions
• From Ince to Higuera/Robertson
• Traversable center left-turn lane
• Parking on the north side of street
• 30 ft. raised median near
Ince/Washington
• From Higuera /Robertson to
National
• No traversable center left-turn lane
• Parking on both sides of street
• Direct route from Expo Station to Downtown Culver City
• Approx. 60 ft. wide curb-to-curb, posted speed limit of 35 mph
• Two through lanes in each direction. Lane configurations vary.
5Example of Washington Blvd. – Existing
Conditions (continued)
• Washington/Ince intersection
(westbound approach)
• Left-turn pocket
• Two right-turn lanes
• Washington and Higuera
Street/Robertson (both
approaches)
• Left-turn pockets
• National (eastbound approach)
• Left-turn and right-turn pockets
6Option 1: Shared Lane Markings
Advantages Disadvantages
-No major lane modifications required
(inexpensive, not impactful)
-Requires bikes to share road with
cars (not ideal for less confident
cyclists)
7Option 2: Bike Lanes
Advantages Disadvantages
-Creates a designated space for
cyclists (more comfortable for some
riders)
-Requires additional space
-Special care should be taken at
Washington/Ince
8Option 2: Bike Lanes– Alternatives for
More Space
• Remove Parking AND Eliminate Center Left-Turn Lanes
AND Eliminate Left-Turn Lanes Pockets, Including
Prohibiting Left Turns (Required for Bike Lane in Center of
Street Option)
Alternative Challenges
•Remove travel lane(s)
•Reduces the capacity of the street to
carry motor vehicles (potential
environmental and development impacts)
•Narrow sidewalks
•Reduces pedestrian-friendliness
•Very high cost due to extensive changes
to public infrastructure
•Remove some parking and eliminate
center left-turn lanes and
•Reduce lane widths or drop bike lanes
approaching intersections (but keep left-
turn pockets)
•Impacts nearby businesses’ parking
•Reduces convenience of driveway
access
•Creates challenges for buses or cyclists
at intersections
•Remove some parking and eliminate
center left-turn lanes and
•Eliminate left-turn pockets approaching
intersections (including prohibiting left
turns during peak periods)
•Impacts nearby businesses’ parking
•Reduces convenience of driveway
access
•Impacts access to intersecting streets
9Before and After Configurations
Example Before Configurations
Potential After Configurations
Parking on both sides but no center left turn lane
Parking on one side and center left turn lane
Parking on one side and no center left turn lane or pocket
(if no left turn pocket, left turns at intersections to be prohibited
during peak hours)
Left turn pocket, but lanes are narrowed approaching intersections,
which creates challenges for buses
Left turn pocket, but bike lanes are dropped approaching intersections
10Washington/Ince Options
• Narrow sidewalk near
intersection (possibly
create alternative
pedestrian route)
• Eliminate left-turn lane
Potential lane configuration: buffered bike lane in center of street.
This lane configuration would have to start at Higuera/Robertson
with a transition.
11Questions and Input
12Appendix: Traffic Counts
13Appendix: Traffic Counts (Washington and
Higuera/Robertson)
Robertson Blvd.
Higuera Blvd.
14Appendix: Traffic Counts (Washington and
Ince)
Ince Blvd.
15Appendix: Traffic Counts (Washington and
Ince)
Ince Blvd.
16Appendix: Aerials - Washington and Ince
17Appendix: Aerials - Washington between
Ince and Higuera/Robertson
18Appendix: Aerials – Washington and
Higuera/Robertson
19Appendix: Aerials – Washington between
Higuera/Robertson and National
20Appendix: Aerials – Washington and
National
21Washington and Ince
Narrowest point (approx. 8 ft.)
22