Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Fwd: PLEASE, CYCLING COMMUNITY -- Beat the drum!!!!

Expand Messages
  • babzrowe@aol.com
    ... From: babzrowe@aol.com To: cyclingLA@yahoogroups.com Sent: Fri, 11 Apr 2008 3:30 pm Subject: PLEASE, CYCLING COMMUNITY -- Beat the drum!!!! Let Rosa
    Message 1 of 2 , Apr 14 1:07 PM
    • 0 Attachment
      -----Original Message-----

      From: babzrowe@...

      To: cyclingLA@yahoogroups.com

      Sent: Fri, 11 Apr 2008 3:30 pm

      Subject: PLEASE, CYCLING COMMUNITY -- Beat the drum!!!!





      Let Rosa Laveaga know that we want to be part of this dialogue!!! 

      I spoke up for all of us at this meeting, but the power of the pen/keyboard needs to be exercised as well. 

        cyclista babz 

       

      More on HWP Annex Option 3 

      Posted by: "andrewc.byrne" andy@... 

      Wed Apr 9, 2008 12:18 am (PDT) 

      From Rosa Laveaga 

      ---- 

       

      Sorry that I was not in the office to see this before today. To clarify: 

       

      Ø in option C, the park road extension was suggested for both bicycles 

      and vehicles…..the suggestion was not a separate bikeway AND a road 

       

      Ø the 50 ft. corridor was suggested to occupy this much space, in 

      part, because of the logistical need to align the existing park 

      roadway with the proposed park roadway extension (at the current RBR gate) 

       

      Ø the 50 ft. corridor was also suggested to occupy this much space, to 

      retain the mature vegetation and oak trees along on the western half 

      of the proposed park road extension as a landscape buffer and to not 

      eliminate them 

       

      Ø in option C, the 50 foot access corridor breaks down to: 

       

      - 18 ft. of trail & landscaping buffer between the Fire Camp/JPL 

      fences and the roadway shoulder (an 8 ft. trail is constant for the 

      entire 800 ft. length, but the width of the landscaping on either side 

      of the 8 ft. trail must vary, depending on the terrain etc.) 

       

      - 24 ft. wide roadway with 1ft. shoulders on both sides (minimum for 

      one lane of travel in each direction) 

       

      - 6 ft. of landscaping between the road and the security fencing at 

      the public equestrian area 

       

      - An additional landscape buffer of 3 to 5 ft. is recommended between 

      security fencing & public equestrian area 

       

      It is correct to say, that the Arroyo Seco Master Plan indicates that 

      bicycle useage is limited to roads and paved surfaces; this is as a 

      result of a huge outcry from the community during the preparation of 

      each of the master plans that bikes needed to be separated from other 

      trail users; this is also consistent with the City municipal code. 

      Hence, the suggestions to keep bikes either on the proposed park road 

      extension or on a separate path in the recent 3 options for the Annex. 

      The Flint Wash bridge is considered a crossing and the one point 

      where trail users share the same corridor due to the confined space. 

       

      Last week’s community meeting was the first time I had personally 

      heard, since the ASMP process, that a greater number of people were 

      favoring the use of multi-purpose trails that horses, hikers and 

      bicycles could all share. I would welcome hearing from other trail 

      users regarding their thoughts about multi-use trails. 

       

      Thank you and I hope this is of some help. 

       

      Rosa Laveaga 

       

      Arroyo Seco Project Supervisor/HWPAC Liaison 

       

      Department of Public Works - Parks & Natural Resources Division 

       

      City of Pasadena 

       

      office: 626.744.3883 

       

      fax: 626.744.3932 

       



      [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
    • Doug
      I went to the first of a series of Chareit meetings and Rose L. made copies of opinions on a planning board. My point was that it is NOT safe to only have
      Message 2 of 2 , May 2, 2008
      • 0 Attachment
        I went to the first of a series of Chareit meetings
        and Rose L. made copies of opinions on a planning
        board. My point was that it is NOT safe to only have
        bocyles only allowed where cars have access. Therefore
        we MUST have multi-use trails and bike paths for
        cycling.
        Then Dennis C. was appointed to the final stage
        planning and that message seemed to get lost.

        --- babzrowe@... wrote:

        > -----Original Message-----
        >
        > From: babzrowe@...
        >
        > To: cyclingLA@yahoogroups.com
        >
        > Sent: Fri, 11 Apr 2008 3:30 pm
        >
        > Subject: PLEASE, CYCLING COMMUNITY -- Beat the
        > drum!!!!
        >
        >
        >
        >
        >
        > Let Rosa Laveaga know that we want to be part of
        > this dialogue!!! 
        >
        > I spoke up for all of us at this meeting, but the
        > power of the pen/keyboard needs to be exercised as
        > well. 
        >
        >   cyclista babz 
        >
        >  
        >
        > More on HWP Annex Option 3 
        >
        > Posted by: "andrewc.byrne" andy@... 
        >
        > Wed Apr 9, 2008 12:18 am (PDT) 
        >
        > From Rosa Laveaga 
        >
        > ---- 
        >
        >  
        >
        > Sorry that I was not in the office to see this
        > before today. To clarify: 
        >
        >  
        >
        > Ø in option C, the park road extension was
        > suggested for both bicycles 
        >
        > and vehicles…..the suggestion was not a
        > separate bikeway AND a road 
        >
        >  
        >
        > Ø the 50 ft. corridor was suggested to occupy
        > this much space, in 
        >
        > part, because of the logistical need to align the
        > existing park 
        >
        > roadway with the proposed park roadway extension (at
        > the current RBR gate) 
        >
        >  
        >
        > Ø the 50 ft. corridor was also suggested to
        > occupy this much space, to 
        >
        > retain the mature vegetation and oak trees along on
        > the western half 
        >
        > of the proposed park road extension as a landscape
        > buffer and to not 
        >
        > eliminate them 
        >
        >  
        >
        > Ø in option C, the 50 foot access corridor breaks
        > down to: 
        >
        >  
        >
        > - 18 ft. of trail & landscaping buffer between the
        > Fire Camp/JPL 
        >
        > fences and the roadway shoulder (an 8 ft. trail is
        > constant for the 
        >
        > entire 800 ft. length, but the width of the
        > landscaping on either side 
        >
        > of the 8 ft. trail must vary, depending on the
        > terrain etc.) 
        >
        >  
        >
        > - 24 ft. wide roadway with 1ft. shoulders on both
        > sides (minimum for 
        >
        > one lane of travel in each direction) 
        >
        >  
        >
        > - 6 ft. of landscaping between the road and the
        > security fencing at 
        >
        > the public equestrian area 
        >
        >  
        >
        > - An additional landscape buffer of 3 to 5 ft. is
        > recommended between 
        >
        > security fencing & public equestrian area 
        >
        >  
        >
        > It is correct to say, that the Arroyo Seco Master
        > Plan indicates that 
        >
        > bicycle useage is limited to roads and paved
        > surfaces; this is as a 
        >
        > result of a huge outcry from the community during
        > the preparation of 
        >
        > each of the master plans that bikes needed to be
        > separated from other 
        >
        > trail users; this is also consistent with the City
        > municipal code. 
        >
        > Hence, the suggestions to keep bikes either on the
        > proposed park road 
        >
        > extension or on a separate path in the recent 3
        > options for the Annex. 
        >
        > The Flint Wash bridge is considered a crossing and
        > the one point 
        >
        > where trail users share the same corridor due to the
        > confined space. 
        >
        >  
        >
        > Last week’s community meeting was the first
        > time I had personally 
        >
        > heard, since the ASMP process, that a greater number
        > of people were 
        >
        > favoring the use of multi-purpose trails that
        > horses, hikers and 
        >
        > bicycles could all share. I would welcome hearing
        > from other trail 
        >
        > users regarding their thoughts about multi-use
        > trails. 
        >
        >  
        >
        > Thank you and I hope this is of some help. 
        >
        >  
        >
        > Rosa Laveaga 
        >
        >  
        >
        > Arroyo Seco Project Supervisor/HWPAC Liaison 
        >
        >  
        >
        > Department of Public Works - Parks & Natural
        > Resources Division 
        >
        >  
        >
        > City of Pasadena 
        >
        >  
        >
        > office: 626.744.3883 
        >
        >  
        >
        > fax: 626.744.3932 
        >
        >  
        >
        >
        >
        > [Non-text portions of this message have been
        > removed]
        >
        >



        ____________________________________________________________________________________
        Be a better friend, newshound, and
        know-it-all with Yahoo! Mobile. Try it now. http://mobile.yahoo.com/;_ylt=Ahu06i62sR8HDtDypao8Wcj9tAcJ
      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.