COUNTERPOINT: Bike share has the capacity to change Los Angeles, but will anyone actually use it?


Hannah Luk | Daily Trojan

Hannah Luk | Daily Trojan

When the first large-scale bike share in Los Angeles was unveiled a little over a week ago, environmentalists rejoiced at the opportunity for the city to finally lower the burdens for bike use in the city and hope to relieve some of the overwhelming traffic congestion that has come to define the area. And though Breeze Bikeshare seems like an innovative solution to the massive public policy problem that is Los Angeles’ over-reliance on cars, it is smart to remain skeptical about whether this new program will be used enough to render it a significant change to transportation in Los Angeles.

Technical issues with the bike share program, for one, could pose a serious obstacle to its overall success. As the Metro publicizes its own independent bike share program, Breeze Bikeshare could conflict with the Metro’s bike share infrastructure. Two simultaneously running bike share programs in the city would just add more expensive confusion into the chaotic mess that public transit in Los Angeles already is. So without a cohesive, unified program, a promise to finally integrate bike share into the fabric of Los Angeles life will remain unfulfilled — especially considering the annoyingly stubborn affinity that Angelenos have for their cars.

Given its recently unveiled — and highly contested — transit plan, which significantly increases bike lanes around the city at the expense of car lanes, Los Angeles is trying to rebrand itself as a more bike-friendly city. And that’s commendable. But even more room on the road and bike share programs might not be enough to convince people to ditch their cars for bike rentals. More truly large-scale infrastructure changes — for example, repaving L.A. roads and making biking safer in certain parts of the city — are necessary before biking as a form of transportation can be widespread.

Moreover, planners also have to take extra steps to ensure that their program caters to an audience that will use it. USC students, for example, are unlikely to use bike share, since so many Trojans have bikes already, and they overwhelmingly prefer other methods of transportation for longer distances away from campus. For those that drive to work, biking — or a combination of biking and using public transit — must be both more economical and faster than driving for them to shift to using bike share on a daily basis.

Bike share has the capacity to truly revolutionize transit in Los Angeles. But policymakers have to take a critical look at whether they’re fixing the problems at hand rather than enlisting a tech startup to be the cure-all of an incredibly complex and unsustainable transportation system that currently pervades Southern California.

Despite our perpetually blue skies, disturbingly sandy beaches and iconic lush palm trees, Los Angeles is still the nation’s smoggiest city. It’s time to applaud the city’s attempt to change that. But as citizens, we should also watch closely to what comes next. It could be either the next stage in Los Angeles’s evolution to a sustainable city — or it could be an unmitigated disaster.

Sonali Seth is a sophomore majoring in political science and policy, planning, and development. She is also the editorial director of the Daily Trojan. “Point/Counterpoint” ran Mondays.

2 replies
  1. PFT Future
    PFT Future says:

    I really expect more from someone studying at Price. I realize this is writing to SC students but bike share isn’t exclusive for SC students in fact its a first/last mile strategy to allow for people who either don’t have a bike or don’t want to carry a bike with them on the metro. It would be foolish to think that a bike share system will be the “revolutionary” change in transportation for Los Angeles, its a piece of the greater transportation system, which enables more trips by bike. I’m hoping you actually read the Metro staff report on the Metro bike share system and how and why they are creating their system and who it is geared towards, the membership and rate structuring etc. Also Breeze bike is a Santa Monica bike share program not a City of Los Angeles program which should have been called out in the article.

    There’s far more to say about this but its just disappointing that a price student, granted an undergrad, would write something without bringing in sources or numbers from other systems as a comparison such as NYC, Boston or DC. They wouldn’t detail the differences in the systems or their managers etc.

  2. Asher Of LA
    Asher Of LA says:

    This editorial is pretty confused.

    >But even more room on the road and bike share programs might not be
    enough to convince people to ditch their cars for bike rentals. More
    truly large-scale infrastructure changes — for example, repaving L.A.
    roads and making biking safer in certain parts of the city — are
    necessary before biking as a form of transportation can be widespread.

    So before we give more room to bikes, biking must become safer. Except giving more room to bikes is what makes biking safer (along with other tools).

    >For those that drive to work, biking — or a combination of biking and
    using public transit — must be both more economical and faster than
    driving for them to shift to using bike share on a daily basis.

    Evidence? People trade convenience, speed and cost for one another; biking doesn’t have to be better in all dimensions to win converts. A ride that’s a little longer but more pleasant and affordable may suffice to sway people.

    >Bike share has the capacity to truly revolutionize transit in Los
    Angeles. But policymakers have to take a critical look at whether
    they’re fixing the problems at hand rather than enlisting a tech startup
    to be the cure-all of an incredibly complex and unsustainable
    transportation system that currently pervades Southern California.

    The only person saying that bikeshare alone has the capacity to revolutionize LA transit is you. Even bikeshare’s biggest backers don’t think bikeshare alone will cause sweeping changes – it’s only in concert with other policies that major progress can be had.

    >Two simultaneously running bike share programs in the city would just
    add more expensive confusion into the chaotic mess that public transit
    in Los Angeles already is.

    The bikes aren’t suited for taking across the city; this problem is more imaginary than real. Plus, solutions exist – there could be ‘bridge’ stations with docks for both systems, in places in the middle, like Culver City and West LA.

Comments are closed.