Over a dozen people attended LA County and Alta Design’s Bicycle Master Plan meeting last month at Hart Park.
The meeting, which focused exclusively on bike infrastructure in the unincorporated County areas of Santa Clarita, was useful and informative. County staff and Alta planners started the meeting off with an overview of the previous meeting (held in Castaic back in April) and laid out the goals for the night.
Cyclists were then invited to review maps of the SCV, note areas of the valley they’d like to see more cycling infrastructure and note their priorities for county bicycle programs (like driver education, safety courses, etc).
Overwhelmingly, cyclists at the meeting said they’d like to see a marked bike lane running the entirety of the Old Road from Castaic to the Newhall Pass. Adding a lane there would address a major weakness of bike infrastructure in the SCV: a total lack of a safe north-south route on the west side of town. Right now, it’s downright frightening to ride on portions of the Old Road, yet there is no other route to places like Castaic, Val Verde, or the businesses in the Commerce Center.
I also had my pet list of bike lane recommendations: I wanted lanes in both directions on Sierra Highway from Agua Dulce to the City line (ideally those lanes would continue into City territory, Sierra Highway is very wide), lanes on Pico Canyon Blvd connecting to Stevenson Ranch Parkway’s lanes, and lanes on Vasquez Canyon Road, north of Saugus.
The great thing about meetings like this is that you get to see how and where other people ride. Some suggested lanes on roads I had never thought of, and it turns out the County is already studying sections of the SCV for lanes that I haven’t even considered. Check out the map:
Bike lanes on county portions of Copperhill Road would be particularly welcome as the City has bike lanes on Copperhill east of Haskell. A bike lane on Placerita Canyon Blvd east of Highway 14 would be sweet for both road and mountain bikers, as would a lane on Bouquet Canyon Road, which has been the site of two vehicle-on-bike crashes (one of them fatal) in the last 18 months.
Of course, not everyone rides their bicycle the same way. Quickly there emerged among the cyclists divisions in the old bike path vs bike lane debate. Some cyclists at the meeting were more recreational-minded; they argued that investments should be made in off-street bike paths, like the ones the City of Santa Clarita has built to segregate cyclists from vehicle traffic.
Other cyclists who view cycling not just as recreation but also as transportation argued that on-street bike lanes are preferable in that they are cheap to implement and go where the roads already go.
It’s an important debate: are bikes merely toys or exercise equipment, or are they vehicles that should be seen as part of the transportation network? I think that unless an off-street path system is complete from one end to another with minimal obstructions to the rider that on-street lanes are preferable.
A minority of cyclists (none of whom were at the meeting as far as I could tell) don’t believe cyclists should have any infrastructure whatsoever, arguing that segmenting cyclists from vehicle traffic paradoxically increases danger to cyclists.
Overall it was a very useful and interesting meeting and I thank the County and Alta for coordinating it and coming prepared.
More County Bicycle Master Plan meetings will be held in the coming months. Keep an eye on SCVTalk.com and LACOUNTYBIKEPLAN.ORG for more.
Loading ...
In my head, the meeting started like this:
“Okay, show of hands, who didn’t ride a bike here tonight?” One tentative hand goes up.
“You get the hell out.”
are bikes merely toys or exercise equipment, or are they vehicles that should be seen as part of the transportation network?
Like I argued previously: They are toys and exercise equipment. Always will be.
JB,
Being “bike friendly” and hoisting upon the general public this fantasy notion that bicycles are alternative modes of transportation equivalent to automobiles is two entirely different things. I welcome SCV to make the area bike friendly, as long as automobiles get preference; but bikes will always remain in the minds of 98 percent of the public, fancy toys and exercise equipment.
New bike lanes are a great idea. They may even make the sidewalks safer for pedestrians.
If bicycles are more than toys and exercise equipment, and are truly part of our transportation infrastructure, then education, licensing, and enforcement of rules-of-the-road for cyclists should be part of the overall strategy. By this I mean mandatory training followed by a test and a revocable license for anyone old enough to be cycling on their own. My reasoning for this is the egregious flaunting of the rules by adult, well to do riders with helmets that match their shiny shorts that seem to be more concerned with conservation of momentum than their own safety and the safety of the drivers and pedestrians that have to maneuver out of their way.
John, you completely misunderstand, I absolutely support bikers and bike lanes. I want to see cycling as a part of the transportation infrastructure, I like riding around my neighborhood (and commuted by bike when I lived in Burbank), and appreciate the efforts for safety that are made on behalf of bikers.
I think that it’s great that so many kids ride their bikes to school in my neighborhood, and it really makes me angry the way drivers can’t seem to give the kids a break. I also agree that many drivers are also ignoring the simple rules, and for some reason the worst offenders seem to be parents taking their kids to school. (I also think that it is far to easy to get a driver’s license, but that discussion will wait for another day.)
I agree that the weight ratio is unfair, if a car is involved in a collision with a bike, the rider loses no matter who’s at fault. I know that many streets are unsafe for bikes, that riders are forced onto the sidewalk, and that many drivers don’t seem to understand that unless specifically prohibited, cyclists are allowed to ride on the streets.
Cars must share the road with bikes. Also, bikes must share the road with cars, follow the same traffic rules, operate in a predicable manner, ride in the same direction as traffic, and signal turns. Also, if you are riding on the sidewalk, you need to yield to pedestrians, and obey the Don’t Walk signals.
You say that it only takes one cyclist to validate my opinion. My opinion is that all cyclist should ride carefully and follow the rules. My observation is unfortunately different.
Several days ago, will running errands (in my car), I encountered for four different bikes riders.
One was heading east in the far right westbound lane of Lyons near Wiley. Scary.
One blew through the new stop sign at 8th and Valley heading north, even though there were two cars stopped at the intersection, and the car with the right-of-way was starting to move east. The cyclist waved at them as he rode past.
While I was heading south on Orchard Village, a cyclist blew the red light at Wiley by turning hard into the far right of the right hand lane right next to me. If I was headed to the building on the right and was drifting over, it could have been a serious situation.
Then back at the intersection of 8th and Valley I encountered one last cyclist. This guy clearly signaled is intention to turn left, and came to a complete stop, letting me go first. I was at the intersection first, and clearly had the right-of-way. I was actually a little surprised.
A repeated serious situation occurs with bike riders on the sidewalks not following the Don’t Walk signs. (Of course pedestrians are frequently guilty too, but don’t fly into the intersection as quickly). Specifically back on the the dreaded Lyons Blvd., the cyclists are forced up onto the sidewalk. Making a right turn from the right turn only lane onto Apple I have had several close calls with riders who ride out from around the bus stop and fly through the intersection against the Don’t Walk sign. If I see a cyclist approaching the intersect, I just assume that he will ignore the signal. It’s unfortunate that the cyclist only feel safe on the sidewalk, but it’s not an excuse to break the law.
When I have to slam on my brakes or make another sudden maneuver because a cyclist has chosen to ignore the law, there is an increased risk to me, the cyclist, and other people sharing the road. Regardless of the relative weight of our vehicles.
My point is, if cyclists want to be taken seriously, they need to take themselves seriously. That means following the rules. And I can assure you that there are more than one cyclist out there breaking the rules meant to keep us all safe.
My suggestion of licenses is a way of codifying acceptance of the law. And potentially punishing those who don’t.
As a cyclist, I ask my fellow cyclists to share the road (and sidewalk when necessary) and follow the rules. It’s the law. Don’t use the fact that most cagers are jerks to excuse bad behavior on your bicycle. Set a good example and spread the love.
I can match every single one of your anecdotes about cyclists with ones about drivers. Probably two to one in fact.
But this one bugs me the most: “One was heading east in the far right westbound lane of Lyons near Wiley. Scary.”
You mean you’re complaining that a cyclist was riding as far to the right as possible on a three lane road? What are you going to complain about next? You do know that California state law allows us to ride on the roads with cars, right? You do know that you are obligated by law to allow the cyclist space on the road, and to not run him off right? If you do not, I suggest you read up on DMV regulations.
And besides, where would you have had him ride exactly?
Before you say sidewalk, consider that Lyons, Orchard Village and many other major roads in this town lack sidewalks. What do we do in that case, just not ride? Hop in our cars like you?
“Specifically back on the the dreaded Lyons Blvd., the cyclists are forced up onto the sidewalk. ”
Precisely my point. If we were considered transportation and given a lane -just five feet of space on Lyons- we wouldn’t even need to use crosswalks. We’d stop at traffic signals just like everyone else. I’m sure you’d find a problem with that solution but as someone who has biked thousands of miles around this town, it’s really the safest solution for cars and bikes.
“My point is, if cyclists want to be taken seriously, they need to take themselves seriously. That means following the rules. And I can assure you that there are more than one cyclist out there breaking the rules meant to keep us all safe.”
Fortunately our state laws aren’t based on your anecdotal observations.
Jeff, I don’t have time for a detailed response, please reread my comments, and you’ll see we are on the same side. The parent speeding in his Escalade with his cell in one hand and his starbucks in the other deserves the ticket he probably won’t get. But he’s not part of a transportation minority trying to get special funds for an Escalade only lane. The guy on his bike who did not stop at the stop sign but cut in front of me at Cherry and Apple this morning doesn’t help the cause. The kids on their bikes heading home from Peachland who do stop at the sign help.
The guy riding his bike eastbound in westbound lanes is breaking the law. He should be riding eastbound in the eastbound lanes. In my comment I say that I do support bike lanes and accommodations, and that I understand that cars have to share the roads. It would be far better if Lyon’s had a bike lane instead of that ridiculous new third lane. But it doesn’t, so bikers need to ride on the street with traffic, or ride on the sidewalk and obey the pedestrian walk signs.
Again, I’m on your side, but the gentlemen riding his bike against traffic isn’t.
I simply don’t understand you last line.
That will teach me to post late at night. I missed the fact that you were writing about a guy riding on the wrong side of the road. You’re right; that’s wrong and not even legal.
We call them bike salmon, for they ride against the grain. And I dislike them.