Comments on: LA Bike Master Plan: Green LA Girl misses the point (2/100)

By: ramonchu

ramonchu — Wed, 07 Oct 2009 23:59:55 +0000

after sitting at the BAC meeting for an hour last night I realized that no project can remove a lane of traffic without an EIR. How cyclists imagine that we’ll be able to fit onto many already crowded and dangerous streets without taking lanes is beyond me. The EIR will have to be done sooner or later, either now, or 5, 10, 15 years down the line. My position seems to be more and more so everyday, might as well duke it out now, determine what we all know to be true (removing a lane of car traffic and replacing it with bicycles will improve the entire transportation network, as well as the entire quality of life in this city) and get that 5% number in half the time. Though I suppose a hypothetical bike path (class 1) could be done if it weren’t on a road and didn’t remove traffic (expo line path?)

By: Zane Selvans

Zane Selvans — Tue, 06 Oct 2009 07:15:24 +0000

I wouldn't take the existence of an EIR for the Pasadena plan as too much of an indication of seriousness. I think they feel compelled to do it because of the legal mess that SF got itself into (and if LA doesn't plan on doing an EIR, they might want to take note...), and they are unlikely to include any plans that would have significant impacts (requiring expensive detailed study). In contrast, the proposal to make the loop around the Rose Bowl one way for cars, opening up the inside lane for purely non-motorized traffic, apparently has an EIR pricetag that's large enough to discourage the City from entertaining the proposition too seriously (nevermind the NIMBYs). Rich Dilluvio said: With regards to the Rose Bowl Loop this project as many people know came as a result of the City Council's direction to work on some type of solution to all the issues of traffic safety at the Bowl. One of the options Mr. Selvans mentions includes a separate lane for Bikes and a one-way loop for motor vehicles. This option if chosen by City Council as the preferred option would entail a significant EIR that would take several mounts if not more than a year to accomplish. Any time you change a roadway to a one-way street it generates a full blown EIR/CEQA study which is also very expensive. Thankfully this is not the case for the EIR that is done for the BMP.

By: ramonchu

ramonchu — Fri, 02 Oct 2009 21:55:00 +0000

so I took up greenLA girl’s suggestion to call in a request for a bike plan workshop, being that I’m new to the scene and not yet cynical (maybe best put; still naive). Anyhow, my call went straight to Jordan Turner who quickly gave me a date that would work for him (the week of Oct19) and actually asked if I knew anyone in the Hollywood area who would like to host a workshop! So, I mean, nothing has really happened yet, and I told Jordan I would email him about our conversation to keep in touch as the date approaches, but I’ve become a little confused by all the different conversations I’ve been having about the bike plan…

If the bike plan is such shit, or rather, EVEN IF the bike plan is half decent, and the real issue is that LADOT won’t listen to anyone’s comments (not even city councilmembers’) to improve it, and further, won’t even implement those projects already on the bike plan, why even bother to extend the deadline for bound-to-be-neglected comments on this half-assed bike plan? Why beat a dead horse?

I’ve heard numerous people say the bike plan has no teeth. Like those damn magic eye posters, I don’t really understand how to see that the Draft Bike Plan has no teeth, but I’ll take historic precedent and my own experience riding every day to know that nothing is being done to forward biking in this city. People say we have to give the bike plan teeth. Some say this requires sending the plan through a full EIR (like pasadena is apparently doing with their plan). I don’t know how an EIR gives a bike plan teeth, seeing as I thought EIRs were to mitigate NEGATIVE effects a project would have, not enforce the seemingly positive effects that something like a bike plan would be teeming with. And from my brief stint with the San Francisco Bike Coalition, whose DOT handled their EIR, that shit show took 2 years of teeth and nails, though I suppose emerged battled hardened.

Anyhow, why don’t we flash-fail this Bike Plan (before November) get the council to move it into an EIR stage (anyone know what that entails?) and rock the public comment portion of the EIR?

Then we’ll pull bikeways out of the LADOT and maybe I’ll finally be able to make it to the Oven riding up glendale Blvd without risking my ass every other day.

Someone answer these questions and help me achieve this dream.