br

>From: "Stephen Box" <Stephen@...>
>To: "Stephen Box" <Stephen@...>
>Date: April 03, 2007 01:32:18 AM PDT
>Subject: LABAC - Sepulveda Reversible Project...
>
>The Los Angeles Bicycle Advisory Committee April Agenda has the
>Sepulveda Blvd. Reversible Land, Bike Lane, and Intersection
>Improvement Project listed for "Update"
>
>Attached is my letter to Lisa Ochsner of BOE regarding the Sepulveda
>Reversible Project.
>
>Details of the project can be found at:
>
>http://eng.lacity.org/techdocs/emg/Environmental_Review_Documents.htm
>
>************************************************************************
>*****************
>Lisa M. Ochsner, Environmental Supervisor I
>City of Los Angeles
>Public Works Bureau of Engineering
>Environmental Management Group
>1149 S. Broadway, Suite 600
>Los Angeles, CA 90015
>Ph. 213-485-5755
>
>Dear Lisa,
>
>Alleviating peak hour congestion, reducing travel delays, and
>enhancing safety for recreational and commuter cyclists are admirable
>goals but the Sepulveda Blvd. Reversible Lane, Bike Lane, and
>Intersection Improvement Project is not the solution.
>
>I am opposed to the Sepulveda Blvd. Reversible Lane, Bike Lane, and
>Intersection Improvement Project as it is currently proposed for the
>following reasons:
>
>1) Sepulveda Blvd. is designated as a Class II Bikeway in the
>Transportation Element of the City of Los Angeles General Plan. Any
>improvement to Sepulveda Blvd. that does not bring Sepulveda into
>compliance with the General Plan is unacceptable. This is the only
>route in this area for cyclists. Any improvement in this area must
>include accommodations for cyclists.
>
>2) The "reversible lane" element is limited to the 1800' area with
>the three lane Sepulveda Tunnel in the middle. Selecting the tunnel
>as the location for the minimal implementation of the ?reversible
>lane? requirement without providing any accommodations for cyclists
>is dangerous. At the least, signage and a demand actuated ?cyclist in
>tunnel? warning system would provide some safety support for cyclists
>in a high conflict area. Anything less is unacceptable.
>
>3) The project calls for a Class III Bikeway on the southbound side
>of Sepulveda which is at odds with the City?s route selection
>criteria which states that routes should NOT be designated on streets
>carrying traffic volumes of over 10,000 vehicles daily or with curb
>lane volumes of over 150 vehicles/hour. Swapping out a Class II Bike
>Lane for a Class III Bike Route is pure sleight-of-hand and it is
>unacceptable.
>
>4) Bike Lanes come in pairs. A Bike Lane on one side only encourages
>wrong way travel. This is also in violation of the LADOT Bikeways
>standard. Placing a northbound bike lane between Bel Air Crest and
>Skirball without a southbound bike lane is unacceptable.
>
>5) Roadway improvements should be?improvements. Removing a bike lane
>to accommodate a new third southbound traffic lane is not an
>improvement and it is unacceptable.
>
>6) While the logic of not placing restrictive bike lanes on a
>downhill is established in the MUTCD, expecting cyclists to merge
>with speeding traffic is simply cavalier and irresponsible. (speed
>limit is 40 mph) Two cyclists died on PCH last year when they were
>forced to merge into 50 mph traffic. Unless there are guarantees that
>vehicular traffic speeds will be restricted on the downhill, this
>plan is pure folly and it is unacceptable.
>
>7) This project would require the restriction of bicycle travel
>during the construction period. Without appropriate accommodations
>for cyclists in the area, the 405 shoulder would then become
>accessible to cyclists. (the prohibition against bicycles on freeway
>shoulders is contingent on the presence of an alternative route) This
>project hinges on a working relationship with Caltrans that is not
>evident, especially in light of the Caltrans move to improve the 405
>in the same area which may create some ROW conflict in play.
>
>Thank you for the opportunity to weigh in on this matter.
>
>Stephen Box
>323-962-6540
>
>
>
>
>
>
>