Bicycle working group urges protected, continuous bike lanes and safer intersections in Los Alamos

Herman Geppert, lead of the Bicycle Working Group, presented a condensed version of the group's 40‑page report to the Los Alamos County Transportation Board on Aug. 7, outlining infrastructure and policy changes the group says are needed to increase bicycle ridership.

Geppert told the board the single biggest predictor of how many people ride a bicycle is the quality of bicycle infrastructure. "The biggest predictor of how many people ride a bike is quality of bicycle infrastructure," he said, adding that safe, continuous, intuitive and well‑separated facilities attract a broader range of riders, including women, older adults and people with disabilities.

The report recommends protected bike lanes where traffic volume and speed are high, and highlights intersections as a critical safety failure point. Geppert described "protected intersection" designs—setback bike lanes, front‑of‑car queueing areas for cyclists, corner islands and split crossings—that reduce blind‑spot conflicts such as right‑ and left‑hooks. He also recommended traffic‑calming tools including corner hardening, centerline narrowing, roundabout design elements and raised crossings to slow vehicle speeds and make crossings more legible for all users.

Geppert cited several data sources in the presentation. He said Los Alamos’ bicycle commute share is approximately 2.6 percent according to the League of American Bicyclists and noted results from LANL and county surveys showing a majority of local regular bike riders reported feeling unsafe on some routes. He urged applying NACTO (National Association of City Transportation Officials) guidance and Vision Zero principles when designing corridors.

Board members and members of the public raised several questions and cautions. Member Altier said the presentation contained strong assertions about riders’ safety perceptions and requested clearer citations; Geppert pointed to LANL and county surveys included in the full report. Several board members and public commenters asked about e‑bikes and regulatory options; Geppert and staff said New Mexico lacks a uniform statutory definition that would make local regulation straightforward and that European equipment standards (support only to 25 km/h) are not directly transferable.

Central Avenue and Diamond Drive drew repeated attention. Geppert suggested a trial of a modal (road) filter or temporary pedestrianized events and said Central Avenue could be a candidate for limited pedestrianization or seasonal trials to assess impacts on businesses and traffic. Board and public commenters noted concerns about emergency access, snow‑plow operations and commercial vehicle/trailer access; Geppert and staff said some European designs and removable bollard solutions exist and that local operational constraints would need project‑level analysis.

The working group gave a list of intersections and corridors it identified as priorities—Canyon/Trinity/Diamond and areas around Omega Bridge and Comoco Hill were singled out for redesign—along with guidance on bike lane width, separation and continuity. Geppert also urged incorporating bicycle design elements whenever road work occurs to build the network incrementally.

No formal motion or vote was taken on the working group's report. Board members asked staff to consider pilot treatments (for example, bridal filters on Central Avenue for events or summer trials) and to revisit specific striping pilots at Trinity/Diamond. Geppert said the group will remain available for follow‑up and encouraged public engagement on the report.

The presentation and ensuing discussion highlighted tradeoffs the county will need to evaluate—space allocation, freight and emergency access, winter maintenance and enforceability of evolving micromobility devices—but left policy decisions and implementation to staff, the board and, ultimately, the County Council.