|
Post by Gokhan on Sept 25, 2011 20:23:05 GMT -8
OK, ...granted, Von's parking lot is busy; nonetheless eay to ride through. And one freeway lamp is with a 4-way light. The other is only on the south side of the street, not affecting nw-bound cyclists. ...But I'll stand down this alternative. As for National, loose the car parking on the north side of the street and I'll feel much more comfortable. As for clear striping making a positive impact on safety. ...Don't think so because the road is soooo curvy, apparently intended to accommodate the once and now forgotten Palms Depot (just my supposition). Now, it's hard in even normal driving, let alone fast driving, to stay to the right on the marked lanes. Add greater lane congestion, and there'll be accidents. Through the parking lot wouldn't work with a busy bike path, with some fast bicycles trying to go through. Also, there is no easy way to get onto National from the parking lot -- no traffic lights. The reason why the National Boulevard curves is topography. There is a natural hill on the north side of National Boulevard that starts at the Palms/National intersection, on top of which the rail right-of-way goes. This is typical of the Palms / Cheviot Hills topography. National Boulevard avoids this hill by curving around it. This way the bicyclists will nicely get to avoid the hill as well. For the location, description, map, and an old video of the Palms Depot, see what I just posted on the historical-Expo-photos thread.
|
|
|
Post by jamesinclair on Sept 25, 2011 22:54:54 GMT -8
Midblock crossings are a problem? It's a shame theres absolutely no way to engineer a safe crossing of a busy road. Same with highways. Theyre like some kind of impenetrable barrier to bikes Excuse the sarcasm but "there's a man made object in the way" is NOT an excuse for not implementing a project.
|
|
|
Post by rajacobs on Sept 26, 2011 7:22:08 GMT -8
Along James' line of argument, ultimately the man-made object that's in the way for this bikepath is the National Bl. underpass that Palms/National traverses. A simple bicycle bridge BETWEEN the rails and the freeway, using the already existing footings, would have taken the path westward without the craziness of encounters with Expo & National traffic from Bagley clear west to Motor, including crossing Palms/National and then the midblock crossover on Motor. The ROW bikepath coulde have been DEDICATED all the way to the recognized bikepath west of Motor (OK, another accommodation for biciycles on the Motor bridge would be required or another bicycle bridge).
As for my admittedly challenged alternative--it appeals to me not from a commute standpoint but simply recreational biking and the opportunity to avoid some traffic along National. From a recreational biking point of view, a casual coast across Von's parking lot is not a problem, nor is going across the adjacent gas station and crossing WITH THE LIGHT at the I-10 westbound offramp at National and continuing northwestward up Manning. ...The reverse is really no more difficult. A coast down Manning then left turn on National with a left turn arrow no less, then right turn into the Von's parking lot, or right turn onto Castle Heights to get back to Harlow and the quiet underpass on Bagley to the ROW.
...Seems safer than having to negotiate the National Bl. traffic where drivers may not readily see the lanes or the bikers due to the curves. Heck, going westbound on National, at the end of the large storage place on the left, traffic is seldom within the lines because of the sharpness of the zigzag. It kills me that the ROW can't accommodate a bikepath between Bagley and Motor as it already does both east and west of this stretch.
|
|
|
Post by bzcat on Sept 26, 2011 10:13:42 GMT -8
Since the last post, the bike path to the Culver City station is again under construction. Beyond North of Venice, it has been noted that the path continues along the northside of the ROW to Bagley, then crosses the tracks and continues along the southside of the ROW until Palms. Then it continues on National to Motor, then Motor until it reaches the ROW. It occurred to me that a preferred route from Bagley, that will probably beat the congestion along National, is to turn right from Bagley and go under the freeway bridge, then left on Harlow (next to the freeway) through the Cheviot Hills Shopping Center at the end of the street, then straight up Manning to Motor, left on Motor (with a light) and back to the ROW. The advantage is: 1) virtually no traffic on Harlow, 2) relatively light traffic on Manning. The only disadvantage is a small hill climb up Manning. The speed of cars around the curves on National bothers me, as does the requirement of crossing Motor mid-block to re-enter the bikepath west of Motor. Is #2 a tongue in cheek joke? ;D Manning does not have "light traffic". It is a heavily traveled road that is the main access road between Century City and I-10. Not to mention the significant hill that will be a challenge for all but the most serious bicycle riders. The National route is not great but it is far better than going through Manning.
|
|
|
Post by Gokhan on Sept 26, 2011 11:41:30 GMT -8
I think likely almost no bicyclist would agree on going through the Vons parking lot and on Manning Ave. That section of National, unlike the section between Palms/National and Motor, is very busy. Not to mention that the Vons parking lot is private property. As also mentioned, Manning is a long detour with two moderately steep hills. Of course, if a bicyclist wants to use the Vons parking lot and Manning, he/she can always do so. As far as putting the bike path on aerial structures is concerned, this has been suggested many times by us and others. While there are obvious advantages to it (safety, speed), there are disadvantages as well (security, graffiti, complexity, cost), but, at the end, the main problem is that they don't have the $100 million or more to do so, as it's not even part of the Expo project but being built separately by Caltrans and the cities. If you want to get involved with the bike path, you should contact the Los Angeles Bicycle Advisory Committee (BAC). All the information can be found on this Web site, and the meeting information is under News and Events: www.bicyclela.org/
|
|
|
Post by rajacobs on Sept 26, 2011 12:52:17 GMT -8
OK, over-ruled on Manning and Von's! But am not looking forward to competing w. National's traffic.
|
|
|
Post by Gokhan on Sept 26, 2011 12:56:52 GMT -8
OK, over-ruled on Manning and Von's! But am not looking forward to competing w. National's traffic. Again, if you really want to get involved with the bike path, you should contact the Los Angeles Bicycle Advisory Committee (BAC). All the information can be found on this Web site, and the meeting information is under News and Events: www.bicyclela.org/You can make them the Manning Ave suggestion along with other suggestions. At the end, it's good to discuss things here, but you need to take them to the appropriate authorities if you want them to receive actual consideration.
|
|
|
Post by rajacobs on Sept 26, 2011 13:07:12 GMT -8
I think that the points that have been made are good ones--in particular, the steepness of the Manning grade and, optionally, traversing private property. It's valuable to discuss alternatives in a forum that offers up modification and objections--as does this forum. While a grade for some may not be a deterrent, it can be a significant one for others and cutting a cross Von's ...well, let's just say it was a wild-eyed pique of insanity. Now $100M is potentially a problem (I hope that's at least something of an exageration!) for a bike path. So we're left with a route that offers greater challenge due to the curves than would be otherwise desirable.
|
|
|
Post by Gokhan on Sept 26, 2011 13:22:14 GMT -8
Now $100M is potentially a problem (I hope that's at least something of an exageration!) for a bike path. So we're left with a route that offers greater challenge due to the curves than would be otherwise desirable. I don't know how much it would actually cost but bike bridges wouldn't be cheap. One of the biggest concerns for the bike path is the very complicated, long, and oblique Pico/Sawtelle crossing. A bike bridge there would be very useful but I don't think they've agreed to spend money on that.
|
|
|
Post by jamesinclair on Sept 26, 2011 14:43:28 GMT -8
RE: Money.
Arent 20% of the measure R funds for roads/highways?
A bike bridge = congestion relief because it allows traffic to move without requiring a stoplight so that bikes can cross.
Use the highway money.
|
|
|
Post by thanks4goingmetro on Oct 7, 2011 15:20:31 GMT -8
I've rode my fixie over Manning once (something I will never do again), I wish I previously knew of this Von's parking lot shortcut haha
|
|
|
Post by rajacobs on Mar 12, 2012 19:32:54 GMT -8
Truly I am waiting, with baited breath, to see how Expo moves the bikepath across National (just south of Washington) and then again, across Washington (going from East to West). I'm guessing that 1) there will be a crosswalk just south of Washington--an impossible crossing location, or 2) cyclists will have to use the sidewalk and lights to get across National and Washington, or 3) they'll simply have to merge onto the street, get across traffic and turn left with the light. None of these seem terribly "graceful" approaches to bicycle movement.
|
|
|
Post by jamesinclair on Mar 12, 2012 23:06:31 GMT -8
Id vote for the least safe and least practical approach. The expo design has proven time and time again that consideration for pedestrian and bicycle movement was the least amount allowed by law.
|
|
|
Post by Gokhan on Mar 13, 2012 10:22:48 GMT -8
Of course, we know that the railroad right-of-way doesn't run along thorough streets and crosses many streets diagonally, and it's no simple task to design a bike path in such a configuration. They could have simply not even bothered to put a bike path but they did and they are trying their best given the difficulties.
If the railroad ran completely at-grade, it would be much easier to put the bike path next to a signalized at-grade railroad. But with the train grade-separated and the bike path not, it makes it very hard. To grade-separate the bike path would not only be very costly but lead to many problems, such as graffiti and security concerns.
|
|
|
Post by jamesinclair on Mar 13, 2012 22:42:47 GMT -8
Of course, we know that the railroad right-of-way doesn't run along thorough streets and crosses many streets diagonally, and it's no simple task to design a bike path in such a configuration. They could have simply not even bothered to put a bike path but they did and they are trying their best given the difficulties. If the railroad ran completely at-grade, it would be much easier to put the bike path next to a signalized at-grade railroad. But with the train grade-separated and the bike path not, it makes it very hard. To grade-separate the bike path would not only be very costly but lead to many problems, such as graffiti and security concerns. Other cities have no problems grade separating their bike trails. Indeed, look at LA! Look at the bike paths that run alongside the freeway, completely grade separated.
|
|
|
Post by rajacobs on Mar 15, 2012 22:50:51 GMT -8
The bikepath between Jefferson and National/Washington is now smoothly paved with some trees planted. Lighting and lane markings are yet to come. There are chain link fence panels loosely covering the bike path access locations, but no real attempt to prohibit access, as was formerly the case.
As the path from the east approaches National/Washington, it fades into dirt and terminates perhaps 200 feet before the corner. At that point exists a stanchion foundation, --my guess, either for lighting or for a crosswalk signal or both.
Another stanchion foundation exists on the opposite (west) side of National, adjacent to a curb depression. I am guessing this is the location of the soon to be completed bike path crossing. It will be interesting to see how this is completed and whether such a crossing will be timed with the National/Washington intersection signal.
|
|
|
Post by rajacobs on Apr 23, 2012 12:52:44 GMT -8
...So apparently, Germany has chosen to not require helmets for bicycle riders. "It gives the wrong message!" Why? It dissuades potential riders from taking to the streets! Strong cycle helmet promotion campaigns (or helmet mandation) are known to reduce cycle use (BHRF, 1020). Where cycle use is low, the risk of injury when cycling is higher due to a reduction in the 'safety in numbers' effect (Jacobsen, 2003; Wardlaw, 2002). Where cycle use is reduced, societal activity levels also decline, leading to increased average weight and obesity. cyclehelmets.org/1079.html
|
|
|
Post by rajacobs on Oct 15, 2012 19:31:57 GMT -8
At the Expo meeting tonight at Vista del Mar I learned that there are no plans --other than existing crosswalks and existing Venice bike lanes-- to link the bike path from Phase One to Phase Two.
From the beginning of Phase Two --at Venice-- a bike path will traverse the southside of the rail to National/Palms separated from the street. At National/ Palms, the bike path will become a bike lane, snaking along National to Motor and then north along Motor to some point after the bridges, near Vista del Mar, where a crosswalk will exist to move across Motor and onto a bike path in the existing easement next to the Freeway.
However... easement means that this path will exist only if the existing homeowner lawsuits fail and after Metro reaches a purchase agreement for the easement acreage from homeowner! In the absence of this, the bike plan will follow Motor to Northvale, turning westward along Northvale until it can return to the ROW sometime west of the rail tunnel underneath the Santa Monica Freeway.
From there, there is excitement that a bike path will exist, separated from traffic, into Santa Monica. The one caveat here is that insufficent pre-planning occurred to facilitate easier crossing of intersections. Thus, every intersection will require a cyclist to use a crosswalk.
Between Westwood and Overland, there is discussion about whether to use the northside or southside of the ROW for the bikepath. West of Westwood the bike path will be on the southside of the rail, and east of Overland the bike path is on the northside of the rail. pedestrian and traffic activity at the Westwood station, a desire exists to engineer the bikepath such that it crosses the rail just west of Overland rather than remaining on the northside of the rail until Westwood.
The biggest challenge for cyclists will remain the Pico crossing at Gateway. It apparently will require crossing Gateway Bl. (east-west) in a crosswalk and then crossing Pico (north-south) in another crosswalk ...two lights, heavy traffic ...no way to rush the cycling here.
|
|
|
Post by bzcat on Oct 16, 2012 11:03:28 GMT -8
The Gateway-Pico intersection is ideal for 3 cycle signal: 1 for cars going straight on Pico, 1 for cars turning from/to Gateway (only 2 possible directions here so no cars crossing each other), and 1 for pedestrians and cyclists continuing diagonally on the mixed use bike/walk path.
I'm not holding my breath that LADOT will agree to such a radical idea of giving bikes their own signal cycle.
|
|
|
Post by rajacobs on Oct 16, 2012 12:54:54 GMT -8
3 cycle signals work well in Pasadena and Beverly Hills.
|
|
|
Post by warrenbowman on Nov 16, 2012 20:02:17 GMT -8
I read on Streetsblog today that a settlement was reached between the homeowners and LADOT regarding the bikeway near Cheviot Hills. The piece I read did not have a lot of details. Does anyone here have any knowledge of the new agreement?
|
|
|
Post by matthewb on Nov 17, 2012 11:12:50 GMT -8
I read on Streetsblog today that a settlement was reached between the homeowners and LADOT regarding the bikeway near Cheviot Hills. The piece I read did not have a lot of details. Does anyone here have any knowledge of the new agreement? la.curbed says the settlement was for extra lighting and a privacy wall: la.curbed.com/archives/2012/11/expo_bikeway_no_longer_a_threat.php
|
|
|
Post by Gokhan on Nov 19, 2012 22:06:32 GMT -8
To anyone who may have an answer or suggestion:
Now that there is apparently a settlement with the homeowners regarding the use of the restricted-use easement for the bike path, I think a Walavista Road access, which directly opens to this easement, would very very useful.
Does anyone know if this is going to be done? If not, what do you think -- should it be suggested?
|
|
|
Post by rajacobs on Apr 29, 2013 9:36:02 GMT -8
Since bikes can't go as fast as cars, they can create traffic jams. With only one central support, the city of Eindhoven in the Netherlands resolves the problem. It's estimated that 5,000 cyclists use this structure every day. (Photo by Chris Keulen; courtesy of National Geographic, May 2013, pp 24-25)...When I think about the difficulty that cycling the Expo route will present from Sepulveda to Gateway along Pico and also negotiating National, Washington, Robertson and Venice, such a solution as the one illustrated offers conceptual direction.
|
|
f ron
Full Member
Posts: 222
|
Post by f ron on Apr 29, 2013 9:49:43 GMT -8
That'll be the day when something like this arrives in L.A.! As an avid cylclist in Los Angeles and someone especially interested in the Expo bikeway, I have a feeling that the Sepulveda-Sawtelle-Pico crossings will sort themselves out and end up being vastly improved over time. What they have in mind right now just isn't going to cut it. Did anyone on this form go the CicLaVia last week? It was huge and the most interesting thing about it's size was the amount of traffic going east-to-west. There is a massive, and pent-up desire on the part of cyclists to be able to 'ride to the beach'. Is it any wonder? I don't think this desire and impulse is going away anytime soon and once Expo, or the city or whomever is responsible for this bit of bike infrastructure becomes acquainted with the number of cylcists needing to cross these intersections it will become readily apparent that a better solution is required.
|
|
|
Post by rajacobs on Apr 29, 2013 10:00:25 GMT -8
My wife and I and my son rode CicLaVia from WLA to Union Station, then took the Gold Line to Sierra Madre Villa and biked to Sierra Madre for dinner before heading home (Gold Line / Expo Line to Culver City).
I agree--what a jam going to the beach! ...Of course the Ballona Creek bike path exists and can serve the needs of folks wishing to get to the beach. But what got me was my perception of an apparent desire to just get out there and ride without the traffic danger.
Every time LA planners figure out how to mitigate the traffic danger, I believe the numbers choosing to ride will rise in a fashion closer to exponentially rather than incrementally. ...What an opportunity exists here with the population density and the increasing gridlock!
|
|
|
Post by Gokhan on Apr 29, 2013 10:56:11 GMT -8
I visited Stockholm last summer and it was a completely different culture with bicycles. Many people ride bikes there and they have well-marked and -configured bike lanes.
It doesn't end there: Bicycles actually obey the rules of the road and they strictly yield to the pedestrians.
Here in LA bicyclists create problems for the cars, pedestrians, and themselves. They obey no traffic law, ride on the wrong side of the road, ignore the stop signs and red lights, and ride on the sidewalk -- and ride fast (on the sidewalk)! They are a big hazard to pedestrians on the sidewalk.
I wonder what can be done about making the bicyclists obey the traffic laws. Perhaps mandatory bicycle licenses and strict traffic-law-enforcement and ticketing? This would not only prevent many injuries but also make cycling more popular and mainstream.
|
|
|
Post by rajacobs on Apr 29, 2013 14:02:24 GMT -8
What you say is true... How many times has my wife pulled me out of the way of a fast-approaching bicycle, on the sidewalk! And stop signs seem as suggestions. It's like taking the car culture of "get away with whatever you can" and applying it to bicycles. It's the feeling of another example of societal breakdown.
To the contrary, when I'm on my bicycle, I'm in fear for my life! I try to do everything right. When we got back to the Culver City station I thought, "well, only another couple of miles and we'll be home safe." ...That's why CicLaVia was such a treat! Yes, there were worries about running into another bicycle or getting run into, but that's nothing compared to a speeding car.
I think the best answer to congestion and following and living with some rules is separation--well-marked and configured bike lanes and figuring out solutions to difficult intersections.
I got checked by a cop on the train for the second time yesterday. I welcomed it! Perhaps the answer to cycling is similar. Get folks riding and then, as required, start ticketing.
|
|
|
Post by TransportationZ on Apr 29, 2013 15:51:39 GMT -8
As a Transportation nut(not just a transit one, but roads, aviation, etc as well), I've always admired the Netherlands.
However, these represent two completely different situations. On the westside, we don't have nearly as much space to construct structures like this, and we have intersections(worse than that dutch intersection above, that's for sure) like this EVERY MILE.
From what I have seen, the best way to implement bike lanes is to have buffer zone between bikes and automobile. Having 1-2 ton hunks of moving metal and fiber glass zoom past you from behind isn't fun no matter how clearly marked the lanes are.
|
|
|
Post by jamesinclair on Apr 29, 2013 22:32:42 GMT -8
I visited Stockholm last summer and it was a completely different culture with bicycles. Many people ride bikes there and they have well-marked and -configured bike lanes. It doesn't end there: Bicycles actually obey the rules of the road and they strictly yield to the pedestrians. Here in LA bicyclists create problems for the cars, pedestrians, and themselves. They obey no traffic law, ride on the wrong side of the road, ignore the stop signs and red lights, and ride on the sidewalk -- and ride fast (on the sidewalk)! They are a big hazard to pedestrians on the sidewalk. I wonder what can be done about making the bicyclists obey the traffic laws. Perhaps mandatory bicycle licenses and strict traffic-law-enforcement and ticketing? This would not only prevent many injuries but also make cycling more popular and mainstream. Lets start by making motorists obey the laws, yes? Here in LA motorists create problems for the cars, pedestrians, and cyclists. They obey no traffic law, ride on the wrong side of the road, ignore the stop signs and red lights, and ride on the sidewalk. They are a big hazard to pedestrians on the sidewalk.
|
|