Location: 4. Creating a Transportation Greenway along the Arroyo Seco Corridor in Northeast Los Angeles

Discussion: I think this is the wrong focus of public funds.Reported This is a featured thread

Category: Discussion Forum / General Discussion
Showing 5 posts

ubrayj02
I think this is the wrong focus of public funds.
Feb 24 2009, 5:41 AM EST | Post edited: Feb 24 2009, 5:41 AM EST
The social movement that has grown in the past few years around bicycling is NOT a recreational movement it is one based our bicycling as a means of transportation.

A 2002 MTA survey of cyclists found that bike riders most commonly ride on the same arterial streets and commercial areas frequented by motorists. one of the things L.A. lacks are facilities to encourage cycling ON THE STREET - where bikes belong.

Further, off-road bike trails and paths are not considered "roads" - and so L.A. is not liable for injuries incurred by lack of maintenance of these non-road roads. Whereas, when cyclists use the streets, they are protected (by law but not nec. by practice) from negligence to maintain a wellpaved street.

Further still, the benefits of public spending on cycling are most effective when spent to slow car traffic in residential and commercial districts - as this benefit to cycling also typically spurs commercial foot traffic and increase livability amongst residents. 0  out of 3 found this valuable. Do you?    
Keyword tags: None
joelinton
joelinton
1. RE: I think this is the wrong focus of public funds.
Mar 5 2009, 7:52 PM EST | Post edited: Mar 5 2009, 7:52 PM EST
I think we can do both! Let's have greenways and complete streets! 2  out of 2 found this valuable. Do you?    

R20
2. RE: I think this is the wrong focus of public funds.
Mar 8 2009, 5:15 AM EDT | Post edited: Mar 8 2009, 5:15 AM EDT
A: Your point is a bit too purist, this greenway is for bikes, pedestrian and anyone else who wants to enjoy the Arroyo and get around town.
B: The social movement around bikes you speak of is a relatively new phenomenom in LA that is generally occupied by wealthier folks who are not of the same demographic as most of LA's bikeriders (working class latinos). The folks who make up the bulk of LA bikeros (noted in the MTA survey) only care about getting from point A to point B safely and timely, the delineation between recreation and transit use of bike routes is a luxury still not debated on in that community. Ask any of these folks who make up the BULK of LA bikers if they prefer arterial amenities over a private bike path and yu can expect the response you will get. A survey that found bikers using arterial routes has nothing to do with the needs of a coddled social movement (I rode my bike around LA for decades and never heard about improving biking until a certain demographic embraced it).

If we want to debate semantics save it for the EIR or a dailynews rant, it is pretty lame to hate on an effort to create a new biking amenity. 2  out of 2 found this valuable. Do you?    
arroyolover
arroyolover
3. RE: I think this is the wrong focus of public funds.
Mar 10 2009, 9:31 PM EDT | Post edited: Mar 10 2009, 9:31 PM EDT
"The social movement that has grown in the past few years around bicycling is NOT a recreational movement it is one based our bicycling as a means of transportation.

A 2002 MTA survey of cyclists found that bike riders most commonly ride on the same arterial streets and commercial areas frequented by motorists. one of the things L.A. lacks are facilities to encourage cycling ON THE STREET - where bikes belong.

Further, off-road bike trails and paths are not considered "roads" - and so L.A. is not liable for injuries incurred by lack of maintenance of these non-road roads. Whereas, when cyclists use the streets, they are protected (by law but not nec. by practice) from negligence to maintain a wellpaved street.

Further still, the benefits of public spending on cycling are most effective when spent to slow car traffic in residential and commercial districts - as this benefit to cycling also typically spurs commercial foot traffic and increase livability amongst residents."
The transportation/bicycle corridor along the Arroyo Seco has always been envisioned as a commuting/transportation option ~ not a social bicycle 'trail.' It is designed as a complement and enhancement to MTA's Master Bicycle Plan; moreover, it is designed to provide bicycle transportation for those who live among some of the disadvantaged community neighborhoods along the Lower Arroyo ~ people who ride their bicycles to work because they have no car ~ giving them a safe passageway with beautiful natural sightlines. Complete streets are great and needed, but shouldn't be the only focus for bicycle transportation parity. 2  out of 2 found this valuable. Do you?    
elemunjeli
elemunjeli
4. RE: I think this is the wrong focus of public funds.
Mar 12 2009, 3:25 PM EDT | Post edited: Mar 12 2009, 3:25 PM EDT
Agreed that the money is wiser spent on paint and bikelanes than special lovely bike paths. However, when I commute, I will often route using a bike path even if its somewhat out of the way, because once on a bike path, without traffic or signals, its faster. I think bike paths increase bicycle usage by giving a safe environment to recreational cyclists. Ultimately, some of these cyclists may get it up, and ride on the road. I agree that working class commuter cyclists are neglected; but its a social issue about taxes and votes. In the bike research workshop Jen brought up that Old Money was instrumental to the New York transformation, and I wouldn't antagonize this group with a bunch of leftist rhetoric (PARA EL PUEBLO!); rather an appeal to liberal intellectuals, and humanists would seem more effective. Do you find this valuable?