|
Post by Gokhan on Apr 30, 2013 11:56:30 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. If a cop sees a motorist doing any of that, he/she will be nailed. Bicyclist? Unlikely.
|
|
|
Post by rajacobs on Apr 30, 2013 12:35:00 GMT -8
TransportationZ echoes my concern when he wrote We need bicycle paths separated from the traffic. My long-standing roll of the eyes has been the plan for National between Palms and Motor--to rejoin the bicycles and cars. Heck, just removing the parking in front of Price Storage would offer enough room for a separated bike path.
I hope it's not going to take cyclist deaths to bring about a change of thinking, planning, and construction.
|
|
|
Post by LAofAnaheim on Apr 30, 2013 13:08:28 GMT -8
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. If a cop sees a motorist doing any of that, he/she will be nailed. Bicyclist? Unlikely. Gokhan - there was no need to make a snide comment about your feeling of cyclists. A lot of transit advocates are very big on biking, and we're strong users of Metro rail. But if you want to make this cyclist v. car..........here's something to understand: When was the last time you heard a pedestrian was killed by a bicyclist? And when was the last time you heard a pedestrian was killed by a car driver? Bicyclists should follow the laws, but some are not realistic. Stopping at red lights is a must, but stopping at a stop sign when there is nobody around.....really? Idaho and Colorado have already adopted laws that bicyclists can just yield at stop signs. Also, I'm nearly always encouraged by drivers to roll through a stop, even though I attempt to stop when there is cross traffic. It's easier for a car to stop-go at a stop sign, than a bicyclist. And again, the bicyclist, by their illegal action, only endangers themself. A car driver, by their illegal action, will endanger innocent people. What's safer?
|
|
|
Post by Gokhan on Apr 30, 2013 13:29:16 GMT -8
I'm all for bicycling. I don't think you understood my point.
Bicycle - pedestrian collisions could seriously injure the pedestrian and possibly the bicyclist as well.
My main point is that many bicyclists think that they are pedestrians with wheels. However, they are quite different, as they are much faster and carry much more energy. (Energy is proportional to the speed squared.) This puts bicyclists themselves, pedestrians, and drivers at risk. You need to go to a developed country in Europe to see how the culture is different there.
My other point was that if there was more education and regulation regarding bicycling, it would actually make it more popular, not less popular.
Besides, even if making the bicycles obey the laws of road prevented, say only 20% of the accidents, this would save a lot of lives. Why not do so then?
|
|
|
Post by rajacobs on Apr 30, 2013 14:39:32 GMT -8
...And today's comment on LA Streetsblog: Bike lanes are being painted on a 1.1-mile stretch of Fig in downtown L.A., a stretch or road that resembles a mini-freeway. The lanes don't appear to be protected in any way from car traffic so it will be interesting to see how much (or how little) they are used and whether bike activists have anything to say about them. This totally captures my issue--that "bike lanes" are being put in place with little thought to usability and their potential for racking up a death count--not to mention realistically answering the question, "Who's going to use these bike lanes?' ...Well, I'm not a "bike activist," but I've said something about it!
|
|
|
Post by LAofAnaheim on Apr 30, 2013 21:40:14 GMT -8
I'm all for bicycling. I don't think you understood my point. Bicycle - pedestrian collisions could seriously injure the pedestrian and possibly the bicyclist as well. My main point is that many bicyclists think that they are pedestrians with wheels. However, they are quite different, as they are much faster and carry much more energy. (Energy is proportional to the speed squared.) This puts bicyclists themselves, pedestrians, and drivers at risk. You need to go to a developed country in Europe to see how the culture is different there. My other point was that if there was more education and regulation regarding bicycling, it would actually make it more popular, not less popular. Besides, even if making the bicycles obey the laws of road prevented, say only 20% of the accidents, this would save a lot of lives. Why not do so then? Nobody wants to get into a bicyclist v. car arguement on a transit board. We're all transit fans and some of us are bike enthusiasts. But when you make snide bike comments for people who were pleasing cicLAvia, that's pretty inconsiderate. Wow, how insensitive can you get with your last comment? Bicyclists somehow cost people's lives? Please provide actual evidence of this statement. I cannot find any statistic where a bicyclist was to blame for a car driver or pedestrians death. I've been googling for 20 minutes, haven't found a stat. Please provide. However, I've seen TONS of links where car drivers killed bicyclists.... The only thing a bicyclist can do is cause a bad bruise to a pedestrian. But to make an empty statment that making cyclists obey rules of the road would save lives, is probably one of the most close-minded statements I've heard, with absolutley no fact. Here's a FACT, supported by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration. FACT: 13 pedestrians die per day due to vehicle crashes. FACT: Majority of those that killed pedestrians were not drinking or crash not due to alcohol. SUPPORT: www-nrd.nhtsa.dot.gov/pubs/810968.pdfGokhan - we appreciate your candor and excitement on the Expo Line, but please don't bring your personal opinion to outside topics. I can go on and on about how car parking is horrible for Metro stations, but I won't continue that arguement. Let's just focus on Metro rail and stop it with baseless statements that rile up the Board.
|
|
|
Post by Gokhan on Apr 30, 2013 21:50:04 GMT -8
I'm all for bicycling. I don't think you understood my point. Bicycle - pedestrian collisions could seriously injure the pedestrian and possibly the bicyclist as well. My main point is that many bicyclists think that they are pedestrians with wheels. However, they are quite different, as they are much faster and carry much more energy. (Energy is proportional to the speed squared.) This puts bicyclists themselves, pedestrians, and drivers at risk. You need to go to a developed country in Europe to see how the culture is different there. My other point was that if there was more education and regulation regarding bicycling, it would actually make it more popular, not less popular. Besides, even if making the bicycles obey the laws of road prevented, say only 20% of the accidents, this would save a lot of lives. Why not do so then? Nobody wants to get into a bicyclist v. car arguement on a transit board. We're all transit fans and some of us are bike enthusiasts. But when you make snide bike comments for people who were pleasing cicLAvia, that's pretty inconsiderate. Wow, how insensitive can you get with your last comment? Bicyclists somehow cost people's lives? Please provide actual evidence of this statement. I cannot find any statistic where a bicyclist was to blame for a car driver or pedestrians death. I've been googling for 20 minutes, haven't found a stat. Please provide. However, I've seen TONS of links where car drivers killed bicyclists.... The only thing a bicyclist can do is cause a bad bruise to a pedestrian. But to make an empty statment that making cyclists obey rules of the road would save lives, is probably one of the most close-minded statements I've heard, with absolutley no fact. Here's a FACT, supported by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration. FACT: 13 pedestrians die per day due to vehicle crashes. FACT: Majority of those that killed pedestrians were not drinking or crash not due to alcohol. SUPPORT: www-nrd.nhtsa.dot.gov/pubs/810968.pdfGokhan - we appreciate your candor and excitement on the Expo Line, but please don't bring your personal opinion to outside topics. I can go on and on about how car parking is horrible for Metro stations, but I won't continue that arguement. Let's just focus on Metro rail and stop it with baseless statements that rile up the Board. Did you even read my post at all? I was referring to the loss of lives of bicyclists themselves caused by them not knowing and/or obeying the laws of the road.
|
|
|
Post by jamesinclair on May 1, 2013 10:34:05 GMT -8
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. If a cop sees a motorist doing any of that, he/she will be nailed. Bicyclist? Unlikely. Gokhan, I know youve been outside, because you take fantastic pictures....so this comment makes no sense to me, at all. Motorists endlessly break laws. Speeding, running reds, not signalling, double parking, etc etc etc. Only the tiniest portion of those gets stopped at ticketed. Heres an article from just the other day from SF on how even the motirists who kill never get charged. www.sfchronicle.com/bayarea/article/Few-consequences-exist-for-drivers-who-kill-4473786.phpAnd no, the idea that regulating cyclists would improve anything in anyway is simply so ill-informed it shocking to see it on a board like this.
|
|
|
Post by Gokhan on May 1, 2013 11:00:52 GMT -8
And no, the idea that regulating cyclists would improve anything in anyway is simply so ill-informed it shocking to see it on a board like this. I am not saying that it will prevent accidents. Of course, there are many horrible drivers out there -- opening car doors wide without looking, not even seeing the bicycle on the side of the road or just ignoring their safety, etc. However, some of the accidents are caused by the recklessness and/or total disregard of rules of the road by some cyclists themselves. And those bicyclists riding 20 - 25 MPH on the sidewalks and not yielding to the pedestrians is another big problem. When I was in Stockholm, Sweden, I was shocked to see the bicycles stopping and yielding to me as a pedestrian! The last time I was shocked in the same way was when I first came to US 21 years ago and when cars would stop and yield to me. Here is a picture from Stockholm. See how the bicycles are all in the bike lane in a nice file (actual line of bicycles was very long but not seen in the picture). Nobody is blocking the crosswalk with his/her bicycle. Here in LA, often a bicycle will block the crosswalk at a traffic light and I will have to step out of the crosswalk in front of passing cars in order to cross the street. The bike culture needs to improve in LA for cycling to be able to become more mainstream.
|
|
|
Post by jamesinclair on May 3, 2013 10:42:51 GMT -8
The thing is, Im sure Copenhagen also has scoffaw cyclists. You didnt notice them because theyre the extreme minority.
Why do you notice them in LA? Because biking in LA is dangerous, so those courteous people stay home.
IE: Imagine LA has 1,000 scoffaw cyclists. Imagine LA has 2,000 cyclists on the road total. OMG SO MANY MISBEHAVING CYCLISTS!
Now lets add in safe bike paths etc. So now LA has 1,200 scoffaw cyclists.. And 20,000 on the road total.
So while in this scenario there are MORE misbehaving cyclists, you dont notice them because now theyre a tiny minority compared to the overall number.
Its all about perception.
(all numbers made up for example only).
|
|
|
Post by Gokhan on Sept 10, 2013 12:06:57 GMT -8
Please join the Los Angeles Department of Transportation’s Bicycle Program for a community meeting to discuss the design and development of the Exposition Boulevard Bicycle Path’s Northvale Segment. The meeting will be held at 7 PM on Tuesday, September 24th, at the Palms Rancho Park Community Library located at 2920 Overland Avenue. This initial meeting will provide an overview of all of the Expo Bike Path segments and allow the community to provide preliminary input on the segment to be designed and constructed between Motor Avenue and Overland Avenue, parallel to Phase II of Metro’s Exposition Line. Design funding for the Northvale segment of the bicycle path has been released and the design process is expected to take approximately one year. This meeting will serve to identify the community’s wishes for the project and will help influence the design process as it proceeds through survey, preliminary design and the final design stages prior to bid, award and construction. While additional meetings will be held, input gathered from this event will greatly determine the direction of the initial design processes. Your participation is strongly encouraged. For additional information about the meeting, please contact the Los Angeles Department of Transportation’s Bicycle Program at (213) 972-4972. -- Michelle Mowery Sr. Bicycle Coordinator City of Los Angeles Department of Transportation Bicycle Program 100 S. Main Street, 9th Floor Los Angeles, CA 90012 (213) 972-4962 www.bicyclela.orgladotbikeblog.wordpress.comwww.facebook.com/LADOTBikeProgramtwitter.com/#!/LADOTBikeProg
|
|
|
Post by rajacobs on Sept 10, 2013 13:04:22 GMT -8
I just sent Michelle Mowery ( michelle.mowery@lacity.org) the following thoughts: Regarding the Exposition Boulevard Bicycle Path’s Northvale Segment, I have identified several areas of concern for the planning and engineering: 1. I‘d like to see the Northvale segment built as reasonably flat as possible. I can’t imagine navigating over a path that hugs the existing altitudinal curvature of Northvale. I am hoping that the easement behind the home on Northvale will be used to achieve this and I will lobby for this solution. 2. First, the on-street bike path between National/Palms/Exposition and the Motor/Northvale easement, and second, the challenge of crossing Motor mid-block after a northward turn on Motor: offers significant risk to cyclists due to the many curves throughout the route. These are busy streets any time near morning and evening rush-hour. Sadly a path was not planned that took advantage of the ROW. Given the apparent community desire to decrease traffic speed along Motor, a bike cross-walk from the west-side of Motor to the east-side of Motor at the National/Motor intersection for cyclists bound both east and west coupled with a dedicated bike path and the west-side of Motor to the easement could resolve the transition from National to the Northvale segment. 3. Similarly, given the width of National, parking could be banned on the north-side of National between Palms/Exposition and Motor and a protected bike path created for both east and west bound cyclists—one even separated from traffic by a separating curb. The idea would be to turn the north side of National into a pedestrian and bike ”thoroughfare” with a wide green-strip, not dissimilar to what exists in Culver City between National/Washington and National/Jefferson. Note that the alternative of having eastbound cyclists navigate to the south-side of National at the National/Motor intersection (which would require a left-hand turn) and then again at the Palms/National/Exposition intersection to access the dedicated bike path east of National/Palms is fraught with the potential for accidents. 4. Lastly, although I know it’s off-topic, but something has to be done to join the bike path east of National and Washington with the western segment beginning North of Venice and Robertson. Transitioning from the existing path to a sidewalk to an intersection (Washington/National) to a parking lot (Culver Station) to a sidewalk (south side of Venice) to an intersection (Venice/Robertson) to a crosswalk (north side of Venice) is unacceptable, impractical, very confusing and potentially accident-provoking.
|
|
f ron
Full Member
Posts: 222
|
Post by f ron on Sept 10, 2013 13:25:24 GMT -8
It's hard to imagine that the easement won't be used. What's the alternative? Sharrows or a painted lane (unlikely) on Northvale proper? Given how some of those neighbors, um, feel about the Expo project in general I find it difficult to believe that they'll be accepting of an influx of cyclists on their quiet street.
I'm interested to know what's intended between the easement and Overland? Painted lanes along Northvale, yes?
|
|
|
Post by Gokhan on Sept 10, 2013 13:55:49 GMT -8
It's hard to imagine that the easement won't be used. What's the alternative? Sharrows or a painted lane (unlikely) on Northvale proper? Given how some of those neighbors, um, feel about the Expo project in general I find it difficult to believe that they'll be accepting of an influx of cyclists on their quiet street. I'm interested to know what's intended between the easement and Overland? Painted lanes along Northvale, yes? Yes, Class 1 or 2 on the street on Northvale Road -- not inside the trench -- west of Palms Park pedestrian bridge is the right thing to do. Putting the bike path inside the trench was an awful idea -- we don't want to turn the trench into a concrete channel like Ballona Creek. It looks like they've given up up on that. East of the Palms Park pedestrian bridge, the 75-ft-wide restricted-use easement adjacent to the backyards of the houses on the north side of the 100-ft-wide railroad right-of-way should be OK. However, there is going to be a lot opposition to that. Currently it's no-man's land there. I rarely see any cyclists on the Expo bike path anyway. I see more pedestrians than cyclists in fact. At the end, this will be a very lightly traveled bike path and certainly there won't be an influx of cyclists. It will be great to have a bike path on the narrow section of Exposition between National/Palms and Durango (Albertsons). Currently cyclists use the sidewalk there, which is very annoying to the pedestrians given that the sidewalk is very narrow to begin with. The section behind Albertsons will also give a great way for the pedestrians to access Palms from the Culver City Station. It's nice that Expo Phase 2 bike path is a federal 17-ft-wide multiuse (pedestrian + bike) path. As I said, it looks like more pedestrians than bikes are using it anyway.
|
|
f ron
Full Member
Posts: 222
|
Post by f ron on Sept 10, 2013 15:02:43 GMT -8
I take your point about the number of cyclists already using the path --and perhaps I'm being overly optimistic-- but I feel as if the further west the path gets the more we'll see riders on it. There's not too many eastward destinations that make for a pleasurable ride on that path as it stands. Even if it's just a lot of kids on training wheels, I have a hunch the "creek park" section between Overland and Westwood will see a lot of action.
|
|
f ron
Full Member
Posts: 222
|
Post by f ron on Nov 18, 2013 17:04:04 GMT -8
Revisiting a previous discussion...
This weekend while visiting the crossing installation I had an opportunity to discuss the pedestrian/bike path with the friendly on-scene Skanska rep. I asked him if the path would be available once construction ended yet before revenue service for the line. He couldn't say with any certainty or authority yet he did say he saw no reason why it wouldn't or couldn't be. Though he acknowledged that if it were accessible that didn't mean the signals would be functional at the street crossings. So, take that for what it's worth pedestrians and cyclists.
|
|
f ron
Full Member
Posts: 222
|
Post by f ron on Nov 21, 2013 12:38:34 GMT -8
|
|
|
Post by RMoses on Nov 21, 2013 14:13:28 GMT -8
|
|
|
Post by Gokhan on Nov 21, 2013 15:07:47 GMT -8
Why don't people realize that they don't need a bike path on Northvale Road? The whole street is a bike path. No one drives there and the traffic there averages to about one car per five minutes. Just designate it Class 3 and it will be set. Class 1 -- a bike freeway -- would just be environmentally unfriendly, especially if they put it in the trench. The only thing they need is to route the bike path as Class 1 from the I-10 freeway shoulder to near where Northvale Road makes a turn (east of Dunleer Drive), as that section of Northvale Road is too steep and roundabout.
|
|
|
Post by Gokhan on Nov 22, 2013 13:00:02 GMT -8
Expo bike path is being put into good use. View from the train in East Culver City today:
|
|
f ron
Full Member
Posts: 222
|
Post by f ron on Nov 22, 2013 14:09:05 GMT -8
That's fantastic. Cute pic Gokhan! Though it's unlikely to be visible from the train, I imagine one will be able to see A LOT of that kind of thing in the bikeway segments between Overland and Military one day soon!
|
|
|
Post by jamesinclair on Dec 7, 2013 19:18:38 GMT -8
[quote author=" Gokhan" source="/post/33466/thread" timestamp="1385075267"Why don't people realize that they don't need a bike path on Northvale Road? The whole street is a bike path. No one drives there and the traffic there averages to about one car per five minutes. Just designate it Class 3 and it will be set. Class 1 -- a bike freeway -- would just be environmentally unfriendly, especially if they put it in the trench. .[/quote] Class 3 is garbage. If people dont feel comfortable, they wont ride. Would you let a 5 year old ride their tricycle on a real street, even if traffic is low? 99% of parents would not. But a dedicated trail? Absolutely.
|
|
|
Post by Philip on Dec 23, 2013 9:15:46 GMT -8
[quote author=" Gokhan" source="/post/33466/thread" timestamp="1385075267"Why don't people realize that they don't need a bike path on Northvale Road? The whole street is a bike path. No one drives there and the traffic there averages to about one car per five minutes. Just designate it Class 3 and it will be set. Class 1 -- a bike freeway -- would just be environmentally unfriendly, especially if they put it in the trench. . Class 3 is garbage. If people dont feel comfortable, they wont ride. Would you let a 5 year old ride their tricycle on a real street, even if traffic is low? 99% of parents would not. But a dedicated trail? Absolutely. Agreed. How would a Class 1 bikeway be environmentally unfriendly?
|
|
f ron
Full Member
Posts: 222
|
Post by f ron on Dec 23, 2013 10:34:37 GMT -8
I believe the "environmentally unfriendly" aspect of a Class 1 on this segment means that in order to have one it would force the removal of a significant number of mature growth trees along the trench. The visually impact of this would be undeniable. I'm sure it would arouse protest. In fact, I'd participate in that protest. While I agree with James in principle about Class 1 paths I think his statement in this case is a little overblown. I'm quite comfortable seeing 5 year olds on trikes where they typically ride and that's the sidewalk. If you're skilled enough to be on two wheels this segment of Northvale is exceptionally quiet. I see no difference between it and the kind of neighborhood streets where I first, and without incident, learned to ride a bike. My 2¢.
|
|
|
Post by Gokhan on Dec 23, 2013 10:56:46 GMT -8
Class 1 won't be easy here in any way -- in-trench or not -- however, LADOT seems determined to make it Class 1.
I've been thinking that the most environmentally friendly Class 1 option could be immediately adjacent to the northern track fence and at the track level in the trench, as opposed to a raised step in the northern part of the trench. If they could put it immediately next to the tracks and at the track level, they could avoid both removing the landscaping and building a retaining wall, as there seems to be enough level space there already. See my comprehensive most recent pictures of the trench posted in the Phase 2 thread.
|
|
|
Post by fissure on Dec 24, 2013 1:01:48 GMT -8
It seems like Northvale is wide enough you could add some bollards along the south side and have the bicycle path directly on the roadway while only losing parking (which is unlikely to be in high demand here, but I'm sure the residents will insist otherwise). This seems like a nice middle ground between the two approaches.
|
|
|
Post by rajacobs on Dec 24, 2013 10:50:45 GMT -8
It seems like Northvale is wide enough you could add some bollards along the south side and have the bicycle path directly on the roadway while only losing parking... ...I agree, Northvale is wide enough and sufficiently sparsely traveled that this alternative deserves serious consideration. I remember when the city added in the two or three stop signs--the first at Dunleer and then1 or 2 more northwestward--and the traffic humps to "calm" the traffic along this roadway. Reducing the width would probably be "desirable" as well! Most significantly, chopping down mature trees is aesthetic neither for the neighborhood nor for cyclists--who would lose the enjoyment of the trees and the shade cover. I hope narrowing Northvale is seriously considered.
|
|
|
Post by mattapoisett on Dec 27, 2013 0:06:51 GMT -8
I believe the "environmentally unfriendly" aspect of a Class 1 on this segment means that in order to have one it would force the removal of a significant number of mature growth trees along the trench. The visually impact of this would be undeniable. I'm sure it would arouse protest. In fact, I'd participate in that protest. While I agree with James in principle about Class 1 paths I think his statement in this case is a little overblown. I'm quite comfortable seeing 5 year olds on trikes where they typically ride and that's the sidewalk. If you're skilled enough to be on two wheels this segment of Northvale is exceptionally quiet. I see no difference between it and the kind of neighborhood streets where I first, and without incident, learned to ride a bike. My 2¢. Apparently you are not much of a cyclist. Sidewalks are not a viable option for cyclists. Motorist come out of driveways, over the curb cuts/sidewalks, directly to the roadway where they stop to look for traffic. Generally if a pedestrian is proximate, motorists will see them and it is no harm no foul. However, it's much harder to perceive a cyclist who is riding on a sidewalk including kids on tricycles who are low enough to the ground where they are really hard to see from a vehicle. In my 35-ish years of cycling I have only been hit once. I was Eleven and on a sidewalk in a very small town in Massachusetts. The off duty firefighter who hit me coming out of a bank's driveway in a car t noon on a clear summer day. swore he didn't see me. Now after all these years and much more experience, I believe him. Fortunately only my bike was injured. Also my vague memory of riding on Northvale Road and in Cheviot Hills in general is the hills make it difficult for all but the lycra clad cyclists, but I will have to take a ride up there soon to re-check it.. I might infer from you post, that If the trees were to be removed to add rail you might be less inclined to raise a fuss. but that would be supposition on my part. Also I'm not sure the number of trees would be significant and if there were, Moving, and replanting and/or regrowing is always a viable option. But a class 1 Bike path is the best option.
|
|
f ron
Full Member
Posts: 222
|
Post by f ron on Dec 27, 2013 13:10:25 GMT -8
mattapoiset, I do about 60-70 miles a week of L.A. city riding. Most of it is on the streets, though I do enjoy the bike paths when they're available. It may not make me much of a cyclist in some people's eyes but I enjoy it none-the-less. That said, even though I just barely hit 3,000 miles a year on my bike I would still protest the removal of the trees that line the Northvale Trench in exchange for a class 1 path along the segment. As for tree removal in general, in relation to the Expo Line, yes it is regerttable and sometimes even asinine --which is how I feel about it all along Westwood Boulevard.
|
|
|
Post by jamesinclair on Dec 30, 2013 23:33:30 GMT -8
Im completely against removal of mature trees, and there are certainly ways to build a class 1 bike path without doing so.
Its not either/or.
|
|