With the exceptional turnout rate of over 300 bike activists, students, public officials, researchers, and various other bike advocates, the LA Bike Summit 2009 achieved great success in fulfilling its initial goals. By bringing together the many facets of bike issues (policy, advocacy, education social, etc.) into one conference, the LA Bike Summit 2009 greatly strengthened ties between bicycle organizations and gave participants the opportunity to create deeply rooted networks and contacts. The workshops spurred much discussion and spread awareness about various issues. With this new education resulted in more involvement in pertaining issues.

The initial discussions that led to the idea of a Bike Summit focused on whether and how an event similar to the 2003 ArroyoFest bike ride and walk on the 110 freeway could be organized. ArroyoFest organizers at the Urban & Environmental Policy Institute, which had played the lead role in the development of the 2003 event, pointed out that while the event had been a major success in participation and had highlighted the community, environmental, and transportation issues associated with the event (and also inspired the development of some new bike advocacy activity), it had not successfully served to better cohere and strengthen an organized bike movement. Instead, ArroyoFest tended to be its own distinct event, with bike advocacy only one but not necessarily the most significant component of the ArroyoFest organizing activity.

The lack of a coherent, unified, and well organized bike movement became more apparent in the years following ArroyoFest, even as bike advocacy – and new bike groups – began to form and flourish. The overall bike movement itself tended to be separated into various policy, advocacy, education and consciousness raising, service-related, mobilization-oriented, and diverse bike ride groups and networks. On the policy side, a series of bike advocacy conferences in the late 1990s helped facilitate the development of the Los Angeles County Bike Coalition which became a leading voice regarding bike policy in southern California, but which didn’t necessarily encompass the full range of new bike activity and advocacy. At the same time, federal policy provisions had also helped establish bike coordinator positions among the major state and regional transportation agencies and governments, such as Caltrans, the MTA, and the City of Los Angeles. While these new staff positions helped increase the visibility of bike issues, they also led to differences and even contention between some bike advocates and the public officials, such as the planning for a new Bike Master Plan for the City of Los Angeles where the differences among various bike advocates and between bike advocates and their policy counterparts inside and out of government spilled over.

Yet bike advocacy was also flourishing. New groups, such as the Bike Kitchen, Bike Oven, and Bikerowave, provided a kind of service infrastructure and meeting ground for bike advocates as well as those new to biking. Training and technical assistance groups like C.I.C.L.E (Cyclists Inviting Change Thru Live Exchange) helped expand what the C.I.C.L.E. staff called the pro-bike, “car-lite” diet for new bike riders and constituencies, such as women and seniors. Bike rides grew in number and frequency, and, although limited in comparison to some more visible efforts and activities in other cities and regions, it indicated that Southern California (including but not limited to the City of Los Angeles) had an active and flourishing bike culture. Even the widely used indicator of percentage of commute trips by bike, though less than 1%, still ranked among the middle of the large cities, despite L.A.’s enormous and overwhelming automobile infrastructure and dependence on the car. When gas prices spiked in the summer of 2008, anecdotal evidence reported in the media, among bike advocates, and by bike shop owners, all identified a significant bump in bike use.

It was in that context – increased activity and bike use, growing number of groups, but a relatively diffuse and dispersed bike movement -- that the idea of a Bike Summit was first raised in the summer of 2008. Initial planning meetings identified the need for greater networking and communication, stronger policy advocacy, education and outreach to “get more people out of their cars and onto bikes,” and strong interest in outreach to low income/community of color residents, such as immigrants who represented a significant portion of bike riders but were not directly engaged in the bike movement. UEPI, as a type of independent player without affiliation with any of the existing bike groups but with a history of interest and activity in the issue dating back to the ArroyoFest event, took the lead in fundraising and fiscal sponsorship as well as conference organization. Long-time bike leader, co-founder of the L.A. County Bike Coalition, and new UEPI associate Joe Linton became the lead organizer for the event, while Ron Milam, also a long term bike leader and head of a new bike training organization (Bike Sage), was also hired as a consultant to help arrange a series of pre-Summit events. An initial October 2008 date was postponed in order to build more constituency support and also not conflict with the heightened pre-2008 presidential election organizing. The new date for the Summit was set for March 7, 2009.

Organizing around the event intensified after a call for workshops was issued in late 2008. A wide range of workshop proposals were submitted and eventually 19 workshops were identified. Four morning keynote speakers agreed to participate: Mexico City Bike Coordinator Dhyana Quintanar; Bernardo Sepulveda from the Instituto de Políticas para el Transporte y el Desarrollo (ITDP), a leading international transportation NGO, Eleanor Blue, a leading Portland-based bike journalist and advocate, and Noah Budnick, with the New York-based Transportation Alternatives. Pre-Summit activities were also planned, including a press conference and a series of meetings, including with transportation officials (hosted by Caltrans), with NGOs working on transportation policy, with city of Los Angeles officials (hosted by the Mayor’s office), and with two key bike and transportation organizations (the Bus Rider’s Union and the L.A. County Bike Coalition). Bike rides prior to the Summit were also planned. (The Conference Agenda and workshop titles and participation list of the pre-summit events is attached).

Planning for the day of the Summit was effectively organized, with more than 35 volunteers participating in various tasks. Table displays were arranged for several bike groups and other community organizations and a wiki/web site was also established in advance of the Summit to provide information and have participants engage in dialogue, including around the planning process. Outreach at Trade Tech also took place, with the press conference (held at Trade Tech) introduced by the Trade Tech President.

The Summit itself proved to be an important moment in the development of a bike movement and in identifying key areas for future activity, collaboration, and constituency building. The workshops, especially, provided a valuable forum for discussion of many of the immediate issues and organizing areas facing the bike community and other environmental and transportation advocates. The morning speakers provided a broader context for the event, with the speakers from the three cities providing invaluable information as well as a sense of possibility and the challenges to be addressed. (Feedback based on survey participants – in the form of a power point – is also attached). While 402 people had pre-registered for the event, approximately 320 people participated during the day, including about 35 volunteers. Among the participants who identified their affiliation, were 93 who identified themselves as bike organization members, 29 who were part of a government agency, 52 who were students or faculty, and another 30 from other community-based organizations.

Several opportunities for future action – and follow up from the Summit – were identified. A workshop around bike research needs helped stimulate a new research network that has identified some limited funding for graduate student research projects that could be tied to future bike advocacy and bike policy issues. A session on the idea of stimulating “ciclovia” events (closing down major streets, as in Mexico City, for a Saturday or Sunday bike ride through the streets) in Los Angeles was raised, with a planning follow up meeting held the next day. Interest in developing innovative campus bike programs and networks was also raised, and follow up activity has been initiated at several campuses. (See attached description of Pitzer College Green Bike Program). There was also discussion of continuing and expanding the Bike Summit wiki/web site and also working closely with existing blogs, wikis and other new media strategies that have become an active part of the bike groups and bike advocates.

Finally, there was lots of discussion – and strong interest – in continuing to have future Bike Summit events, ranging from an annual Summit conference, to smaller, more frequent workshop-type gatherings. Such events are contingent on sufficient funding and resources as well as continuing the efforts to better network and cohere the bike work in Southern California as a whole.

For many public officials – and for many residents – the role of the bike in Los Angeles still seems like a marginal part of the transportation and even recreational environment of a place so associated with the automobile. But as talk of a green economy, a new energy future, and new ways to deal with streetscapes and the urban form becomes more compelling, the bike movement, even in Los Angeles, especially in Los Angeles, becomes more central to how we view those issues. The L.A. Bike Summit provides one important step in that direction.