Torrance Road - Cyclists 'Not Permitted'?
#1
Junkmaster
Thread Starter
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Federal Way, WA
Posts: 155
Bikes: Lemond '05 Alpe d'Huez, Rebuilt in 2020
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 11 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times
in
0 Posts
Torrance Road - Cyclists 'Not Permitted'?
I'm reading this article on a puny, 0.7-mile stretch of road which looks spacious and wide open on the shoulder, yet it cyclists are 'not permitted'.
Even if the city took a legal exception to exclude cyclists from this road for safety reasons or some other BS reason I am discontent over the prohibition for two reasons:
1. What does this open the door to? People, especially the more intolerant and reckless motorists, will petition city officials to ban cyclists from all roads.
2. Less cyclists distributed over the roads worsens the safety, as studied countless times over the decades.
By California law, bicyclists are considered non-motorized vehicles and should be permitted to travel on all local streets and roads. This ban should not be tolerated, for any reason, even if it is a puny 0.7-mile stretch.
Even if the city took a legal exception to exclude cyclists from this road for safety reasons or some other BS reason I am discontent over the prohibition for two reasons:
1. What does this open the door to? People, especially the more intolerant and reckless motorists, will petition city officials to ban cyclists from all roads.
2. Less cyclists distributed over the roads worsens the safety, as studied countless times over the decades.
By California law, bicyclists are considered non-motorized vehicles and should be permitted to travel on all local streets and roads. This ban should not be tolerated, for any reason, even if it is a puny 0.7-mile stretch.
#2
SuperGimp
Holy S**T!
32 million for a 0.7 mile stretch of road, and it took 200 people 2 years to build that thing? Did they pave it with platinum or something?
W...T....F.
Totally agree with your thoughts on banning cyclists. What an ill considered reason too.
32 million for a 0.7 mile stretch of road, and it took 200 people 2 years to build that thing? Did they pave it with platinum or something?
W...T....F.
Totally agree with your thoughts on banning cyclists. What an ill considered reason too.
#3
Senior Member
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: SoCal
Posts: 305
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times
in
0 Posts
Google Maps satellite view has "before" shots. It looks like they had to move over half a mile of railroad spur. No bike lanes that I could see from satellite shots anywhere on Del Amo in that vicinity. Torrance to the south at least has bike lanes.
#4
SuperGimp
I don't want to sound all A+S but sometimes I wonder if bike lanes don't hurt us more than they help us... just give me room over there. it just gives car drivers ammo to think we don't belong on "their" roads. Half the roads I bike on have sketchy bike lanes anyway.. .they appear and disappear regularly so what are you supposed to do? Get on the sidewalk for a block? With all the light poles, trees & power converters?
#5
Senior Member
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: MANHATTAN BEACH, CA
Posts: 209
Bikes: 2013 BMC GRAN FONDO GF01, 2010 SPECIALIZED ROUBAIX, 2004 TREK FX7000, 2013 SPECIALIZED ALLEZ
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times
in
0 Posts
Torrance Blvd does have some bike lanes; but the stretch between Maple (where Del Amo ended going east) and Vermont (where you pick it up again) is a bit sketchy and the road sucks. Was looking forward to using the completed section to cut some time off going from Manhattan Beach over to Long Beach and beyond. Wonder if TPD will be out at 7AM this Saturday?
The reasoning for banning cyclists from this stretch "due to heavy industial use" could apply to a lot of roads in Torrance. Stupid.
The reasoning for banning cyclists from this stretch "due to heavy industial use" could apply to a lot of roads in Torrance. Stupid.
#6
Senior Member
Wondering if they passed some sort of ordinance that prohibits bicycles on that section of roadway or if they just decided bikes don't belong. There would seem to be a need for some sort of law/ordinance if they plan to cite cyclists.
#7
Senior Member
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Escondido, CA
Posts: 2,240
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times
in
0 Posts
It seems that the refinery next to that stretch of road is a major source of air pollution, it gets citations from time to time. And there's a chemical plant across the street. Even if you were legally allowed to ride there, you probably wouldn't want to do that without a respirator.
#8
#5639
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: San Diego, CA
Posts: 1,206
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 3 Times
in
2 Posts
I'm curious how the city thinks it can ban bicycle and pedestrian traffic from the road. In CA, there is a law that says they cannot. This is not a freeway, so unless there is some super secret MUP that parallels the road, bicycles are perfectly legal. Using the excuse of "heavy traffic" will not hold up in court.
#9
Senior Member
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Downey, Ca
Posts: 910
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 2 Times
in
1 Post
Stupid trees are more important than making room for peds/cyclists. 32 million and the tax payers who cycle/walk are left out. Tax payers have to fund the care of those trees, cutting, when one falls on some one then tax payers have to even pay more. Great.
#10
Senior Member
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: Bay Area, Calif.
Posts: 7,239
Mentioned: 13 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 659 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 7 Times
in
6 Posts
I'd expect any restriction of bicyclists on this roadway extension to be challenged in court.
#11
Senior Member
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Escondido, CA
Posts: 2,240
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times
in
0 Posts
Under the California Vehicle Code 'local authorities' (i.e. cities, counties, etc.) are restricted in what traffic rules they can legally enact. In particular, Section 21 calls for uniform traffic rules in the state and therefore no local rules should conflict with the CVC, and Section 21100 has an inclusive list of all the types of regulations that may be imposed by local authorities and there's nothing in there about banning bicycle access to public roadways. The CVC itself restricts bicycle access to limited access highways where properly posted and alternatives exist and to toll bridge crossings unless otherwise indicated by proper signage - but all other public roadways should be accessible to bicyclists.
#12
Senior Member
I'm curious how the city thinks it can ban bicycle and pedestrian traffic from the road. In CA, there is a law that says they cannot. This is not a freeway, so unless there is some super secret MUP that parallels the road, bicycles are perfectly legal. Using the excuse of "heavy traffic" will not hold up in court.
#13
Senior Member
Join Date: Jan 2005
Posts: 3,170
Mentioned: 3 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 43 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 2 Times
in
2 Posts
Up here in Pasadena a construction company posted "bicycles prohibited" signs on the bridge by the devils gate dam while they were doing some construction. I think it only took one letter quoting the CVC to get it removed. A city up in the bay area did the same thing a few years ago, and again it was fixed with a letter or two to the city attorney pointing out the law and some suggestions that it would be cheaper to just remove the signs and striping than to lose in court first and still have to remove the signs and striping. I think I still have a copy of the letter lying around somewhere.
#14
Senior Member
Join Date: Jul 2011
Location: Los Angeles
Posts: 70
Bikes: 2013 Cervelo R3 Ultegra, 2011 Trek 2.1, 80's Guerciotti
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times
in
0 Posts
I drove on that portion of Del Amo Blvd yesterday and sure enough, there's a sign banning pedestrians and bicycles. It's funny how to the west on Del Amo Blvd by Madrona before the new section, bicycles are permitted and after the new section bicycles are permitted too. It's just over that section that bicycles are banned. Doesn't make any sence
#15
Senior Member
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 191
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times
in
0 Posts
Has anyone contacted the local government (Department of Safety or Transportation) to find out exactly why? Just get their answers, perhaps asking for clarification, without making arguments about it. Then it's time to start phone calls and letters to the contrary
#16
Senior Member
Join Date: Jan 2005
Posts: 3,170
Mentioned: 3 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 43 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 2 Times
in
2 Posts
I think "how" is more important than "why". If they just did it arbitrarily without complying with state law, then it should be easy to get the signs removed. If there's some hidden clause in the CVC somewhere, or a special dispensation from the state, then it might be harder.
edit: I just wrote to LACBC to see if they know anything or if they have contacts who can explain it (or want to send a formal letter to Torrance). I included a copy of the letter that the silicon valley bike coalition used to get Los Altos to remove their bike ban on a road.
another edit: LACBC and South Bay Bike Coalition are looking into it. It sounds like SBBC was already looking into it.
edit: I just wrote to LACBC to see if they know anything or if they have contacts who can explain it (or want to send a formal letter to Torrance). I included a copy of the letter that the silicon valley bike coalition used to get Los Altos to remove their bike ban on a road.
another edit: LACBC and South Bay Bike Coalition are looking into it. It sounds like SBBC was already looking into it.
Last edited by bitingduck; 08-29-12 at 10:56 AM.
#17
Just Keep Pedaling
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: Lakewood, CA
Posts: 3,355
Bikes: 99 Schwinn Mesa GS MTB, 15 Trek Domane 5.9 Dura-Ace, 17 Trek Emonda SL6 Pro & 18 Bianchi Vigorelli
Mentioned: 30 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 251 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 67 Times
in
34 Posts
Curious where this stands now.
#20
Seat Sniffer
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: SoCal
Posts: 5,615
Bikes: Serotta Legend Ti; 2006 Schwinn Fastback Pro and 1996 Colnago Decor Super C96; 2003 Univega Alpina 700; 2000 Schwinn Super Sport
Mentioned: 18 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 937 Post(s)
Liked 1,966 Times
in
561 Posts
I think "how" is more important than "why". If they just did it arbitrarily without complying with state law, then it should be easy to get the signs removed. If there's some hidden clause in the CVC somewhere, or a special dispensation from the state, then it might be harder.
edit: I just wrote to LACBC to see if they know anything or if they have contacts who can explain it (or want to send a formal letter to Torrance). I included a copy of the letter that the silicon valley bike coalition used to get Los Altos to remove their bike ban on a road.
another edit: LACBC and South Bay Bike Coalition are looking into it. It sounds like SBBC was already looking into it.
edit: I just wrote to LACBC to see if they know anything or if they have contacts who can explain it (or want to send a formal letter to Torrance). I included a copy of the letter that the silicon valley bike coalition used to get Los Altos to remove their bike ban on a road.
another edit: LACBC and South Bay Bike Coalition are looking into it. It sounds like SBBC was already looking into it.
The prohibition of pedestrians and bicyclists on the Del Amo extension between Crenshaw and Maple was a condition placed on the project due to a risk assessment that analyzed the flares located on the southern edge of ExxonMobil's property that are adjacent to the Del Amo extension that was conducted as part of the Environmental Impact Report. The Environmental Impact Report can be found on the City's website at https://www.torranceca.gov/9980.htm The EIR can be found at the bottom of the page under Agency Contact. The flaring is discussed on pages 156 - 157 (EIR page numbers 3.8-7 to 3.8-8) and page 160 (EIR page number 3.8-12). A flaring event creates serious thermal hazards to any pedestrians and bicyclists that would be present on the Del Amo extension during the flaring event. Based upon these risks to pedestrians and bicyclists and in order to protect their safety, the project was conditioned to have no pedestrians or bicycles on the Del Amo extension between Crenshaw and Maple.
If you review that document, you'll see that they recommended prohibiting bike traffic on only one side of the road, not both. And there is no indication that it is an expressway.I pointed this out to the attorney who sent the response, but they're out of the office until later next week. I'll let you know the scoop.
__________________
Proud parent of a happy inner child ...
Proud parent of a happy inner child ...
#21
Senior Member
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: MANHATTAN BEACH, CA
Posts: 209
Bikes: 2013 BMC GRAN FONDO GF01, 2010 SPECIALIZED ROUBAIX, 2004 TREK FX7000, 2013 SPECIALIZED ALLEZ
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times
in
0 Posts
Seems like if there is a flaring event, they should close the whole road at that time. Hopefully the City reconsiders - it would be nice to use Del Amo to get to Long Beach from the South Bay.
#22
Flat Ire
The poster beat me to this. I actually biked across the road (missed the sign, d'oh!). As I was riding across, I thought, "Shoulder so nice and wide, they'll probably paint in a bike lane." Then in the middle of the bridge I saw another sign, and I high-tailed it before I got caught.
As a motorist, I'm not real comforted that flame-outs are possible here. I'll keep the windows closed.
As a motorist, I'm not real comforted that flame-outs are possible here. I'll keep the windows closed.
#23
Senior Member
Join Date: Jan 2005
Posts: 3,170
Mentioned: 3 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 43 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 2 Times
in
2 Posts
I sent off an e-mail to the city attorney and received this in reply:
I pointed this out to the attorney who sent the response, but they're out of the office until later next week. I'll let you know the scoop.
The prohibition of pedestrians and bicyclists on the Del Amo extension between Crenshaw and Maple was a condition placed on the project due to a risk assessment that analyzed the flares located on the southern edge of ExxonMobil's property that are adjacent to the Del Amo extension that was conducted as part of the Environmental Impact Report. The Environmental Impact Report can be found on the City's website at https://www.torranceca.gov/9980.htm The EIR can be found at the bottom of the page under Agency Contact. The flaring is discussed on pages 156 - 157 (EIR page numbers 3.8-7 to 3.8-8) and page 160 (EIR page number 3.8-12). A flaring event creates serious thermal hazards to any pedestrians and bicyclists that would be present on the Del Amo extension during the flaring event. Based upon these risks to pedestrians and bicyclists and in order to protect their safety, the project was conditioned to have no pedestrians or bicycles on the Del Amo extension between Crenshaw and Maple.
If you review that document, you'll see that they recommended prohibiting bike traffic on only one side of the road, not both. And there is no indication that it is an expressway.I pointed this out to the attorney who sent the response, but they're out of the office until later next week. I'll let you know the scoop.
And the condition (imposed by who?) may have put them in violation of the CVC.
edit: I took a quick look at the EIR, and it didn't say "bicycles shall be prohbited, and signage posted", it said "sidewalks and bicycle paths shall not be permitted". The "worst case" flare is about 2 kW/m^2, or about twice the noonday sun on a clear day in socal. It would be hot, but the EPA allows up to 5 kW/m^2 (according to the report, and with no conditions stated). FWIW, I had my house baked for termites and you could walk in when the air temp was ~150 F and it wasn't too unpleasant.
Last edited by bitingduck; 08-29-12 at 05:23 PM.
#24
Senior Member
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Escondido, CA
Posts: 2,240
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times
in
0 Posts
The "worst case" flare is about 2 kW/m^2, or about twice the noonday sun on a clear day in socal. It would be hot, but the EPA allows up to 5 kW/m^2 (according to the report, and with no conditions stated).
#25
Senior Member
Join Date: Jan 2005
Posts: 3,170
Mentioned: 3 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 43 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 2 Times
in
2 Posts
I wouldn't underestimate this. 2 kW/m2 will cause severe pain in any exposed skin after a couple of minutes. In the EU, there's a recommended exposure limit of 100 seconds at 2 kW/m2.
And as mentioned already-- the EIR only recommended limiting access on one side of the street and not limiting it on the other (because the radiated load drops rapidly with distance).