Comments on: Stupidest Bike Lane

By: Anonymous

Anonymous — Fri, 16 Jan 2009 09:48:26 +0000

I’m glad someone else mentioned how dangerously close to cars this is, but really, if this is the stupidest bike lane in the US you really don’t know how lucky you are:http://www.warringtoncyclecampaign.co.uk/facility-of-the-month/(Eleanor, http://lnr.livejournal.com)

By: martinherrndorf

martinherrndorf — Thu, 15 Jan 2009 22:09:07 +0000

the bike lane is not online ridiculously short, it is also dangerous as it is so close to parking cars – open your car doors and catch one of these badly-shaved, sweaty bikers off the road btw, when citizens in my home town (cologne in germany) voted on a part of the city budget, a large percentage of the proposals were – bike lanes! the town has reacted. you can change mindsets!

By: Anonymous

Anonymous — Thu, 15 Jan 2009 19:39:51 +0000

As a city planner in Los Angeles, I can say yes, that’s how it works. At some point we change our planning code to say ‘when you build x, you must provide $ for street improvements.’ When there is a development, say someone puts in an apartment complex, that’s when we can require them to shell out $ for improvements like bike lanes. As the block develops and as permits expire and are renewed, the bike lane grows.

By: keithbartenzgmai

keithbartenzgmai — Wed, 30 Nov -0001 00:00:00 +0000

I know that expanding streets is very difficult for city planners, and often they take advantage of small sections whenever they get the chance. You can see several s-curvy curbs on the West side of Los Angeles (which make parallel parking REALLY difficult) because they take the opportunity to expand the street whenever a whole building changes ownership. The idea is that eventually, every building will change ownership, and you can then expand the WHOLE street.

Wouldn't it make sense that this one block was under construction and the decided to put a bike-lane in using the same line of logic?