- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: Bike lane controversy on Glenmore Ave in BR
Posted on 10/7/15 at 3:44 pm to Salmon
Posted on 10/7/15 at 3:44 pm to Salmon
They actually did ask for it. But they also asked for the option to close the entire Glenmore street to outsiders. One option was actually to not allow CP vehicles on it...as if that would calm the traffic.
1
Posted on 10/7/15 at 3:52 pm to torrey225
quote:
They actually did ask for it. But they also asked for the option to close the entire Glenmore street to outsiders. One option was actually to not allow CP vehicles on it...as if that would calm the traffic.
Glenmore residents actually got dpw to go agree to having a barricade erected which would block glenmore at Wells St. It would stop people from using glenmore as a cut-thru to other parts of town. it was just a coincidence that white folks live immediately north of the barricade and black folks live immediately south of it. they even erected a sign saying when it would close. If i recall, kip took one look at it and said hell no.
Posted on 10/7/15 at 3:52 pm to goofball
quote:
. It was wrong for the city to install the lanes in the first place
THEY BEGGED FOR THEM.
You are so dense. Get educated before posting your BS.
Posted on 10/7/15 at 3:54 pm to piratedude
Glenmore and Bawell were not always connected right?
Posted on 10/7/15 at 3:55 pm to torrey225
quote:
THEY BEGGED FOR THEM.
They begged for traffic calming measures.
Posted on 10/7/15 at 3:58 pm to torrey225
quote:
Glenmore and Bawell were not always connected right?
that is correct.
Posted on 10/7/15 at 3:59 pm to torrey225
quote:
THEY BEGGED FOR THEM.
They begged the city to do something about speeders by calming traffic.
It's obvious that the dedicated bike lane was never actually warranted on a slow and straight residential street like that the first place and the city should have never installed them regardless of who wanted them.
Removing an unnecessary dedicated lane would not cause an undue burden to cyclists that ride on the street and it also wouldn't create political enemies to stand in the way of new bike lanes in the future. A shared lane was always more appropriate for a street with that format.
Cyclists need to keep their eye on the ball. The long term goal is to make Baton Rouge a bike-friendly city....not to piss off everyone that you encounter or forcing bike lanes on a residential street where it isn't wanted.
This post was edited on 10/7/15 at 4:01 pm
Posted on 10/7/15 at 4:00 pm to Golfer
quote:
They begged for traffic calming measures.
Ie speed humps. They weren't begging for bike lanes.
Why the hell did they not just have speed humps?
Posted on 10/7/15 at 4:03 pm to torrey225
quote:
You are so dense. Get educated before posting your BS.
The name calling is not necessary.
quote:
THEY BEGGED FOR THEM
They begged for something to be done about speedy traffic and cut-throughs.
Posted on 10/7/15 at 4:05 pm to Golfer
quote:
THEY BEGGED FOR THEM.
They begged for traffic calming measures.
yes they did. dpw and cpex discussed problems and solutions with the residents in the area, came up with 3 options, including bike lanes, and sent out ballots to the homeowners. if you were there monday night, you heard boo thomas remind us that the result was actually a combination of two of the plans, based on the results of the balloting. i don't recall bikers being consulted, represented or considered when glenmore and capital heights residents pushed to have bike lanes and speed humps installed. Kip quashed the speed hump idea for capital heights.
edited because bike "lane" is the preferred nomenclature.
This post was edited on 10/7/15 at 4:07 pm
Posted on 10/7/15 at 4:07 pm to piratedude
Oh I know...I'm just clarifying that Glenmore didn't go running to CPEX & DPW begging for bike lanes. They begged for traffic calming, of which, bike lanes became part of the plan.
Anyways, I'm over this...
Anyways, I'm over this...
This post was edited on 10/7/15 at 4:08 pm
Posted on 10/7/15 at 4:08 pm to piratedude
quote:
i don't recall bikers being consulted, represented or considered when glenmore and capital heights residents pushed to have bike paths and speed humps installed
Level headed cyclists are quick to point out that dedicated lanes wouldn't be necessary on that street.
This was a half-baked effort for the city to claim that they've added X miles of new bike lanes....Nevermind that they were crudely painted onto a street that never needed it instead of actually breaking out the construction equipment and adding them on Perkins, Jefferson, etc.
Posted on 10/7/15 at 4:10 pm to dewster
Honest question, is there a group actively fighting to keep the lanes? Or is it just an argument over ticketing cars that park on them. Sounds like everyone agrees cyclists didn't originally request this. And for the most part everyone agrees it's not necessary nor working. So is there a group fighting to keep it? I keep seeing "why are cyclist picking this battle to keep these lanes", but are they actually going to these meetings and doing that. Or are they just being pesky about the parking issue while the lanes actually exist?
Posted on 10/7/15 at 4:15 pm to member12
quote:
This was a half-baked effort for the city to claim that they've added X miles of new bike lanes...
you obviously weren't involved in the decision making process. Maybe the result was that, in addition to giving us what we wanted, EBR could pat itself on the back. the fact that cost no significant money to accomplish our goals and provide a benefit to bikers has nothing to do with spending a great deal of money on other, completely unrelated, projects.
Posted on 10/7/15 at 4:34 pm to KG6
quote:
Honest question, is there a group actively fighting to keep the lanes
I don't know that anyone is willing to die to keep a bike path on that particular street. I know that capital heights wants to insure that nothing happens with our bike paths. Our lawns are small, and generally suck, so we're not threatened by bikers looking at them.
But there is a bigger issue, and that is one of progress. If Baton Rouge is viewed as an intolerant hick town that lets a few wealthy people thwart the progress of the entire area, it will hurt our overall ability to attract business and qualified employees. Like it or not, the ability to commute via bicycle is one of many measurements of the youthfulness of the community. Businesses want an young, educated, hip employee pool. they're not really interested in truck driving good ole boys who grew up intolerant and by god, like it. they want progressive thinking people. how many people do you know who got an education and headed off to houston/austin/dallas/atlanta, because "baton rouge sucks."
dedicated bike lanes is one way baton rouge is trying not to suck. removing bike lanes just increases the suck factor
Posted on 10/7/15 at 4:38 pm to piratedude
quote:
I know that capital heights wants to insure that nothing happens with our bike paths. Our lawns are small, and generally suck, so we're not threatened by bikers looking at them.
Brah, I know I need to weed the flower bed but cut me some slack...its not that bad.
Posted on 10/7/15 at 4:44 pm to piratedude
quote:
If Baton Rouge is viewed as an intolerant hick town that lets a few wealthy people thwart the progress of the entire area, it will hurt our overall ability to attract business and qualified employees.
That's exactly what cyclists will avoid by not creating an enemy out of a somewhat powerful, wealthy neighborhood that doesn't want dedicated bike lanes. This is the wrong battle to pick. The last thing that they need is for more residents to balk at proposals from the city to add bike lanes in other areas.
quote:
Like it or not, the ability to commute via bicycle is one of many measurements of the youthfulness of the community
Cyclists won't stop using Glenmore just because a dedicated bike lane is turned into a shared lane.
quote:
dedicated bike lanes is one way baton rouge is trying not to suck. removing bike lanes just increases the suck factor
That's hyperbole. Be realistic here....dedicated lanes aren't really needed. A shared lane is more appropriate for this street and would appease everyone.
This post was edited on 10/7/15 at 4:47 pm
Posted on 10/7/15 at 4:51 pm to KG6
quote:
Honest question, is there a group actively fighting to keep the lanes?
so i ranted instead of answering your question. i'm not a biker, so i don't know what is going on behind the scenes, but at the meeting monday, there were several speakers.
a resident of hundred oaks who spoke on behalf of bike interests
2 lawyers who live in webb park who said they never signed on for no parking, but don't necessarily want to get rid of bike lanes.
a 90 year old resident of 100 oaks who said we should work to get along.
reps from cap heights and another, who i can't recall now, both speaking generally about how we like bike lanes.
and several other dignitaries/dpw reps/ebr lawyers/etc, none with an axe to grind.
Several bikers have tried to talk to glenmore about parking and were blown off, so they called the police. the police went out and warned, and that should have ended it. instead, some people said some idiotic things and threw down the gauntlet. then they tied a bike to a car, and used the bike to block the bike lane, and said some more stupid things.
and then glenmore called a meeting with Denise Marcel demanding that something be done. so, the bikers came to the meeting for a show of force. everyone rattled swords, and the meeting ended. the only really entertaining thing to happen was the bikers (and every non-webb park attendee) clapped to drown out the webb park lawyer who was unwilling to quit talking when his allotted 3 minutes was up. everyone else was very cordial and professional
Posted on 10/7/15 at 4:53 pm to piratedude
quote:
a 90 year old resident of 100 oaks who said we should work to get along.
I was pissed that the Advocate article didn't even mention him.
Posted on 10/7/15 at 5:09 pm to goofball
quote:
That's hyperbole. Be realistic here....dedicated lanes aren't really needed. A shared lane is more appropriate for this street and would appease everyone.
i don't know if they are needed or not, but they have been there for 8 years. it has become a matter of perception. a couple of glenmorons made public statements that basically said "frick you, we're rich and we don't care about anyone but us, and we don't want dirty bikers perving on our beautiful lawns."
naturally, the dirty bikers are upset by this because they really dig perving on the glenmoron's beautiful lawns, and their big titted blonde trophy wives, plus they're afraid that, if they let the glenmorons have their way, the perkinmorons, hundredoakmorons, kleinertmorons and goodwoodmorons will block bike lanes in their respective kingdoms if ever the money shows up to build real bike lanes there.
so, i don't think it is about that particular stretch of glenmore. i think it is about progress and the perception of going backwards.
Page 29 of 31
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News