Go Back  Bike Forums > Community Connections > Regional Discussions > Southern California
Reload this Page >

Torrance Road - Cyclists 'Not Permitted'?

Notices
Southern California Southern California

Torrance Road - Cyclists 'Not Permitted'?

Old 08-23-12, 12:28 PM
  #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.
facial is offline  
Old 08-23-12, 01:15 PM
  #2  
SuperGimp
 
TrojanHorse's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: Whittier, CA
Posts: 13,346

Bikes: Specialized Roubaix

Mentioned: 147 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1106 Post(s)
Liked 64 Times in 47 Posts
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.
TrojanHorse is offline  
Old 08-23-12, 01:34 PM
  #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.
cdp8 is offline  
Old 08-23-12, 01:40 PM
  #4  
SuperGimp
 
TrojanHorse's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: Whittier, CA
Posts: 13,346

Bikes: Specialized Roubaix

Mentioned: 147 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1106 Post(s)
Liked 64 Times in 47 Posts
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?
TrojanHorse is offline  
Old 08-23-12, 01:41 PM
  #5  
Senior Member
 
peckma's Avatar
 
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.
peckma is offline  
Old 08-23-12, 02:42 PM
  #6  
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Oxnard, CA
Posts: 4,571

Bikes: 2009 Fuji Roubaix RC; 2011 Fuji Cross 2.0; '92 Diamond Back Ascent EX

Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 6 Post(s)
Liked 16 Times in 12 Posts
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.
CACycling is offline  
Old 08-23-12, 06:30 PM
  #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.
hamster is offline  
Old 08-23-12, 10:04 PM
  #8  
#5639
 
robertkat's Avatar
 
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.
robertkat is offline  
Old 08-24-12, 12:14 AM
  #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.
LAriverRat is offline  
Old 08-24-12, 03:03 AM
  #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
Originally Posted by CACycling
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.
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.

I'd expect any restriction of bicyclists on this roadway extension to be challenged in court.
prathmann is offline  
Old 08-24-12, 03:18 AM
  #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
Originally Posted by prathmann
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.
CVC 21960 authorizes local authorities to ban bicycles and pedestrians from freeways and expressways. Even if it has a 35 mph speed limit, it may technically be considered a freeway ("a highway in respect to which the owners of abutting lands have no right or easement of access to or from their abutting lands") or at least an expressway ("highway having partial or complete control of access").
hamster is offline  
Old 08-27-12, 09:51 PM
  #12  
Senior Member
 
mkadam68's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Eastern Tennessee.
Posts: 3,694

Bikes: 2012 MotorHouse road bike. No. You can't get one.

Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2 Post(s)
Liked 9 Times in 6 Posts
Originally Posted by robertkat
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.
+1
mkadam68 is offline  
Old 08-28-12, 07:53 PM
  #13  
Senior Member
 
bitingduck's Avatar
 
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.
__________________
Track - the other off-road
https://www.lavelodrome.org
bitingduck is offline  
Old 08-28-12, 09:21 PM
  #14  
Senior Member
 
Pokey Rider's Avatar
 
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
Pokey Rider is offline  
Old 08-28-12, 09:26 PM
  #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
Blinkie is offline  
Old 08-29-12, 09:28 AM
  #16  
Senior Member
 
bitingduck's Avatar
 
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.
__________________
Track - the other off-road
https://www.lavelodrome.org

Last edited by bitingduck; 08-29-12 at 10:56 AM.
bitingduck is offline  
Old 08-29-12, 12:09 PM
  #17  
Just Keep Pedaling
 
Beachgrad05's Avatar
 
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.
Beachgrad05 is offline  
Old 08-29-12, 12:15 PM
  #18  
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
Hard to believe that a single .7 mile stretch of an otherwise non-freeway road could be classified as a freeway.
cdp8 is offline  
Old 08-29-12, 12:22 PM
  #19  
GP
Senior Member
 
GP's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2004
Posts: 7,630
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 28 Post(s)
Liked 1 Time in 1 Post
Maybe they forgot the bike lane in the planning stage and now there's not enough room to put one in.
GP is offline  
Old 08-29-12, 02:03 PM
  #20  
Seat Sniffer
 
Biker395's Avatar
 
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
Originally Posted by bitingduck
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.
I sent off an e-mail to the city attorney and received this in reply:
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 ...

Biker395 is offline  
Old 08-29-12, 02:16 PM
  #21  
Senior Member
 
peckma's Avatar
 
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.
peckma is offline  
Old 08-29-12, 02:39 PM
  #22  
Flat Ire
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: SoCal
Posts: 405

Bikes: Trek 1100, DeRosa Idol

Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 6 Post(s)
Liked 1 Time in 1 Post
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.
Attached Images
File Type: jpg
DelAmo.jpg (91.9 KB, 38 views)
lesiz is offline  
Old 08-29-12, 05:10 PM
  #23  
Senior Member
 
bitingduck's Avatar
 
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
Originally Posted by Biker395
I sent off an e-mail to the city attorney and received this in reply:
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.
If it's a "serious thermal hazard" to cyclists and pedestrians, then it is likely also a serious thermal hazard to motorcyclists and possibly also motorists. Given what they spent on engineering the road, they likely could have mitigated it with appropriate barriers.

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.
__________________
Track - the other off-road
https://www.lavelodrome.org

Last edited by bitingduck; 08-29-12 at 05:23 PM.
bitingduck is offline  
Old 08-29-12, 06:12 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
Originally Posted by bitingduck
If it's a "serious thermal hazard" to cyclists and pedestrians, then it is likely also a serious thermal hazard to motorcyclists and possibly also motorists.
Motorists have steel cages around them, motorcyclists are typically well-insulated too (typically in thick pants and a long-sleeve jacket), but cyclists have a lot of exposed skin.

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).
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.
hamster is offline  
Old 08-29-12, 07:33 PM
  #25  
Senior Member
 
bitingduck's Avatar
 
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
Originally Posted by hamster
Motorists have steel cages around them, motorcyclists are typically well-insulated too (typically in thick pants and a long-sleeve jacket), but cyclists have a lot of exposed skin.
Motorists can also get stuck in traffic (and it sounds like they were supposed to re-time the lights to reduce the risk of that). And there are certainly motorcyclists and scooter drivers who aren't covered in leather.


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.
It would certainly be unpleasant, but a cyclist will likely only be exposed for a few seconds, and that's the predicted worst case. The radiated load could also be mitigated pretty effectively with reflectors mounted between the flare and the road. For a road cyclist in the road at 15-18 mph, it's a pretty brief exposure.

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).
__________________
Track - the other off-road
https://www.lavelodrome.org
bitingduck is offline  

Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us - Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service -

Copyright © 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.