31–40 of 90 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
No. The cars and semis will be going 55-70 mph, typically 5 lanes each way. It is incredibly loud. The bridges you mention don't have traffic like this.
Why not just build a wall as a sound barrier to push the noise upward and over the bike lane?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
3 hours to go 10 miles. It's amazing that people could let it get so bad. I remember watching shows as a kid in the 1970's about how you couldn't get Californians out of their cars. They're not the kind of people who believe in mass transit. They just thought you should make the roads wider. I guess it still needs to get a little worse.
> I remember watching shows as a kid in the 1970's about how you couldn't get Californians out of their cars. Southern Californians. I think Northern Californians (bay area) are much easier to get out of their cars.
I think this is still an excellent idea for a lot of areas, especially Los Angeles where the traffic is horrendous all the time. It wouldn't take much to build this alongside major freeways so that you won't have to claim eminent domain and go through private properties. This would take up a max of an extra 10-15 feet on the side of freeways. Now, in LA a lot of freeways are built out so much that there's not even 10…
Nice and cheap, plus you get bikes away from cars entirely, not simply relegated to the side of a high traffic, high speed street. I think it's the best option for any city in the US where there just isn't the political will to do anything more.
I think this is still an excellent idea for a lot of areas, especially Los Angeles where the traffic is horrendous all the time. It wouldn't take much to build this alongside major freeways so that you won't have to claim eminent domain and go through private properties. This would take up a max of an extra 10-15 feet on the side of freeways. Now, in LA a lot of freeways are built out so much that there's not even 10…
As an LA motorcyclist, I can tell you that almost no one would want to bike 10-15 ft. from the edge of the freeway. It's extremely loud and unpleasant, and there's a significant amount of debris that would need frequent removal.
Most of the good bikeways around here are their own routes which exist on their own merits and don't sync up with the roadways. The few which manage to parallel a highway and are still enjoyable have a decent separation.
I think this is still an excellent idea for a lot of areas, especially Los Angeles where the traffic is horrendous all the time. It wouldn't take much to build this alongside major freeways so that you won't have to claim eminent domain and go through private properties. This would take up a max of an extra 10-15 feet on the side of freeways. Now, in LA a lot of freeways are built out so much that there's not even 10…
As an LA motorcyclist, I can tell you that almost no one would want to bike 10-15 ft. from the edge of the freeway. It's extremely loud and unpleasant, and there's a significant amount of debris that would need frequent removal.
I enjoyed the article, but I'm very hesitant to believe any news sponsored by or affiliated with Vice. On top of questionable reporting practices, companies can pay to influence the content of articles and the type of coverage. Examples: http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2013/04/08/130408fa_fact_...
I think this is still an excellent idea for a lot of areas, especially Los Angeles where the traffic is horrendous all the time. It wouldn't take much to build this alongside major freeways so that you won't have to claim eminent domain and go through private properties. This would take up a max of an extra 10-15 feet on the side of freeways. Now, in LA a lot of freeways are built out so much that there's not even 10…
Cycling right next to a freeway sounds gross. All you need to do is take some back roads, slap down some speed bumps, sharrows and other things to slightly annoy cars, and call it a day: http://www.portlandoregon.gov/transportation/article/348902 Nice and cheap, plus you get bikes away from cars entirely, not simply relegated to the side of a high traffic, high speed street. I think it's the best option for any city…
I completely disagree.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
No. The cars and semis will be going 55-70 mph, typically 5 lanes each way. It is incredibly loud. The bridges you mention don't have traffic like this.
Why not just build a wall as a sound barrier to push the noise upward and over the bike lane?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
3 hours to go 10 miles. It's amazing that people could let it get so bad. I remember watching shows as a kid in the 1970's about how you couldn't get Californians out of their cars. They're not the kind of people who believe in mass transit. They just thought you should make the roads wider. I guess it still needs to get a little worse.
LA is slowly improving its transit situation from what it used to be, though unevenly. A light-rail line from downtown to Pasadena was opened in 2003, and the subway system is finally being extended, it seems, through some of the more densely populated area of the westside: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Purple_Line_Extension The Metrolink commuter-rail system also runs 500 miles of track, and is now a reasonable optio…
1) Drive to rail station for park and ride? About 10 minutes, great.
2) Light rail to station nearest to my work place? About 30 minutes and covers 90% of the distance, awesome.
3) Station to my work place? About 1 hour using bus system...
I'll just drive instead since even with bad morning traffic I'll still get there faster because the bus system is really really bad.
I get a bit upset when I think about it because I can get there 90%, but that last bit is ruined by the stupid bus system.