<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: State Complete Streets Bill Heading to a Final Vote Next Week</title>
	<atom:link href="http://la.streetsblog.org/2008/08/07/complete-streets-bill-heading-to-a-final-vote-next-week/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://la.streetsblog.org/2008/08/07/complete-streets-bill-heading-to-a-final-vote-next-week/</link>
	<description>Covering Los Angeles&#039;s livable streets movement</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Tue, 07 Feb 2012 14:06:00 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1</generator>
	<item>
		<title>By: Marcotico</title>
		<link>http://la.streetsblog.org/2008/08/07/complete-streets-bill-heading-to-a-final-vote-next-week/comment-page-1/#comment-1896</link>
		<dc:creator>Marcotico</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 07 Aug 2008 20:25:58 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://la.streetsblog.org/2008/08/07/complete-streets-bill-heading-to-a-final-vote-next-week/#comment-1896</guid>
		<description>UBrayj,  You are completely right about this.  There is a growing body of research in this direction, including a presentation I saw at the CA. APA meeting in 2006 called &quot;How to talk to your traffic engineers about traffic calming.&quot;  Some of the data shows that in the right situation a one lane road can carry more volume than a two lane road (due to weaving).  

There are a lot of interesting powerpoints on line about these issues in the abstract, but it is really important to start setting quantitative engineering based standards for such things as speed and required widths.

Also look up Mike LYdon&#039;s writings on Planetizen.com.  He talks about the importance of planning for 3 types of cyclists (novice, intermediate, and advanced).  I think this is a really important idea, because your performance/distance commuter does not want the same facilities as your comfort/local errand rider. (bike lanes v. separate recreation paths)</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>UBrayj,  You are completely right about this.  There is a growing body of research in this direction, including a presentation I saw at the CA. APA meeting in 2006 called &#8220;How to talk to your traffic engineers about traffic calming.&#8221;  Some of the data shows that in the right situation a one lane road can carry more volume than a two lane road (due to weaving).  </p>
<p>There are a lot of interesting powerpoints on line about these issues in the abstract, but it is really important to start setting quantitative engineering based standards for such things as speed and required widths.</p>
<p>Also look up Mike LYdon&#8217;s writings on Planetizen.com.  He talks about the importance of planning for 3 types of cyclists (novice, intermediate, and advanced).  I think this is a really important idea, because your performance/distance commuter does not want the same facilities as your comfort/local errand rider. (bike lanes v. separate recreation paths)</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: ubrayj02</title>
		<link>http://la.streetsblog.org/2008/08/07/complete-streets-bill-heading-to-a-final-vote-next-week/comment-page-1/#comment-1895</link>
		<dc:creator>ubrayj02</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 07 Aug 2008 19:41:17 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://la.streetsblog.org/2008/08/07/complete-streets-bill-heading-to-a-final-vote-next-week/#comment-1895</guid>
		<description>It is funny that this is what the CA Bike Coalition is fighting for.

Just the other day, in the Los Angeles City Council&#039;s Transportation Committee, I got to hear the LADOT explain that they were following state guidelines for determining the speed limits on roads.

The guidelines for making that determination ask that the engineer performing the survey &quot;take into account&quot; certain things:
-residential density along the stretch of road being studied
-&quot;Bicycle safety&quot; - explicitly  written in this way.

So, the engineers said, &quot;We considered it.&quot; Then they recommended speed limit increases that run counter to the interests of local residents and bicyclists!

Just asking an agency to &quot;consider&quot; certain user groups is entirely the wrong tack to take, in my opinion.

We need our own set of standards - standards that allow an engineer to build a case for decreasing speed limits, decreasing the Level Of Service, decreasin the Average Daily Trips, or Vehicle Miles Traveled, of &quot;Mobility&quot; (distance a car can move in a set time period).

We won&#039;t need to ask anyone to &quot;consider&quot; slowing car speeds or increasing sidewalk widths - they will have a set of data and measurements that they cannot ignore, under the threat of lawsuit.

I support the ideals behind this bill, but I&#039;d say it is more or less a hard fought for piece of fluff legislation.

I&#039;ve read some inspiring words about how great bikes are within the State of California&#039;s Codes - but those same codes ignore the power they have to influence local agency engineers to measure the road in ways that benefit cyclists and pedestrians.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>It is funny that this is what the CA Bike Coalition is fighting for.</p>
<p>Just the other day, in the Los Angeles City Council&#8217;s Transportation Committee, I got to hear the LADOT explain that they were following state guidelines for determining the speed limits on roads.</p>
<p>The guidelines for making that determination ask that the engineer performing the survey &#8220;take into account&#8221; certain things:<br />
-residential density along the stretch of road being studied<br />
-&#8221;Bicycle safety&#8221; &#8211; explicitly  written in this way.</p>
<p>So, the engineers said, &#8220;We considered it.&#8221; Then they recommended speed limit increases that run counter to the interests of local residents and bicyclists!</p>
<p>Just asking an agency to &#8220;consider&#8221; certain user groups is entirely the wrong tack to take, in my opinion.</p>
<p>We need our own set of standards &#8211; standards that allow an engineer to build a case for decreasing speed limits, decreasing the Level Of Service, decreasin the Average Daily Trips, or Vehicle Miles Traveled, of &#8220;Mobility&#8221; (distance a car can move in a set time period).</p>
<p>We won&#8217;t need to ask anyone to &#8220;consider&#8221; slowing car speeds or increasing sidewalk widths &#8211; they will have a set of data and measurements that they cannot ignore, under the threat of lawsuit.</p>
<p>I support the ideals behind this bill, but I&#8217;d say it is more or less a hard fought for piece of fluff legislation.</p>
<p>I&#8217;ve read some inspiring words about how great bikes are within the State of California&#8217;s Codes &#8211; but those same codes ignore the power they have to influence local agency engineers to measure the road in ways that benefit cyclists and pedestrians.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>

