 many more feet?”

Weighing heavily on the committee’s decision was Psomas’s recommendation to rebuild the corridor at the 66’ width for practical reasons: money and time. It would be more cost-effective (and take less time) to work wider and finish wider, Psomas said, than to work within a narrower corridor or later have to return to a post-construction 60’ curb-to-curb width. Cost-savings and mitigation benefits argued for a wider corridor, they said.

And that may have tipped the balance: the final vote was 7-4 in favor of expansion. Yays: Anderson, Bernstein, Brown, Eliot, Pressman, Raffel, and Wolfe. Nays: Aronberg, Corman, Licht and Reims.

Bicycle Lanes

Throughout the first three meetings, the on-street bicycle lanes design option (or ‘enhancement’ if you like) dominated the committee’s attention. And at times it was contentious. But in meeting #4 the issue yielded to the boulevard expansion decision. And once that decision was made, the vote to approve class II lanes went quickly.

Chair Pressman played a key role in framing the issue by focusing on regional connectivity. “I don’t believe that Beverly Hills can be a city unto itself,” he said. He referred to the support offered by both Los Angeles and West Hollywood and in particular their offers to meet our lanes at the city boundaries if we build them. Speaking hypothetically, he asked, “Now we have a boulevard, it’s wider, so do we stripe it?”

But Dr. Pressman hedged. Some on the committee worried that if we striped our lanes but those cities might not close the gaps, that we’d have our own ‘bridge to nowhere.’ Dr. Pressman wondered too. “Show me the money,” he said, and suggested that we wait for those cities to stripe the last few blocks in the gap on their side of the boundary. “I recommend we delay [striping].”

Rec & Parks Chair Anderson agreed: “Hold off.” But Bernstein disagreed: “If we stripe it, it’s incentive for [those cities]. If we stripe to our boundaries, we’ll be putting up ‘the money’ (so to speak).

Then consensus emerged and in five minutes it was decided. Mr. Brown said “Stripe it
many more feet? ” 

 Weighing heavily on the committee ’s decision was Psomas ’s recommendation to rebuild the corridor at the 66 ’ width for hardheaded reason: money and time. It would be more cost - effective (and take less fourth dimension) to work wider and finish wider, Psomas order, than to work within a narrower corridor or subsequently have to return to a post - construction 60 ’ bridle - to - curb width. Cost - rescue and moderation benefits argued for a wider corridor, they said. 

 And that may have tipped the proportion: the final vote was 7 - 4 in favor of expansion. yay: Anderson, Bernstein, Brown, Eliot, Pressman, Raffel, and Wolfe. Nays: Aronberg, Corman, Licht and Reims. 

 Bicycle Lanes 

 Throughout the first three merging, the on - street bicycle lanes design choice (or ‘ enhancement ’ if you like) overshadow the committee ’s attention. And at times it was contentious. But in meeting # 4 the return yielded to the boulevard expansion decision. And once that decision was made, the vote to approve course II lane went quickly. 

 Chair Pressman played a key role in framing the issue by focusing on regional connectivity. “ I do n’t believe that Beverly Hills can be a city unto itself, ” he say. He referred to the support offer by both Los Angeles and West Hollywood and in especial their offers to meet our lanes at the city limit if we build them. Speaking hypothetically, he asked, “ Now we accept a boulevard, it ’s wider, so do we stripe it? ” 

 But Dr. Pressman hedged. Some on the committee worried that if we striped our lane but those cities might not close the gaps, that we ’d have our own ‘ bridge to nowhere. ’ Dr. Pressman wonder too. “ indicate me the money, ” he said, and suggested that we wait for those cities to stripe the last few block in the gap on their side of the boundary. “ I commend we delay [ deprive ]. ” 

 Rec & Parks Chair Anderson agreed: “ Hold off. ” But Bernstein disagree: “ If we stripe it, it ’s incentive for [ those city ]. If we stripe to our boundaries, we ’ll be putting up ‘ the money ’ (thus to speak). 

 Then consensus emerge and in five minutes it was decide. Mr. Brown said “ Stripe it
 majy more feet?”

Weighing heayily on the commnrtee’s vecisioh was Psumas’s recommendation to rebumld rhe cirridor at the 66’ width wor practpcal reasins: niney and tmje. It would bs morz rost-effective (akd take lesv time) to work wkdzr and finish wider, Psomas said, than to worl aithin a narrorer bowridkg ir later have to return to a lost-convtruction 60’ cutb-to-curb width. Cost-savings and mitigation benefihs argued fir a qider corridur, they sapb.

And that mzy have tipped the balance: the winal vote was 7-4 ib fweor of expaision. Jays: Anderson, Bernstehn, Browm, Eliot, Pressmsn, Caffwl, and Wolfe. Nays: Aroiberg, Corman, Licht agd Reims.

Bhcvcle Lanes

Throughout rhw firvt tvree neeginfs, tge on-shrext bicycle manes desigb option (or ‘enhancekegn’ if you like) dominwtqd the committee’s attention. And at timev if was contentious. But ib meeting #4 the issue iielded to the boulevard expansion decision. And once that dacisikv wcw madd, tje vote to approve class II lanes went quicklr.

Dhsig Pressman played a key role ij gtaming the issoe by focuaing on regional clnnectidity. “U don’t bejievr that Beverly Hills can be a city unto utself,” he said. He xeferred to che sukport pffered by both Los Angzles ahd West Holpywood ans in particular tfeig ofxers to meet our lanes at ehe city uoundcries if we nuild ehem. Speaklng hn[othetically, he asned, “Nlw we have a boulevard, it’s wider, so do we svcipe it?”

But Dr. Psesvman hedyed. Soke on the comiittee worried that iy we sgriped our lanes uut those cieies might nod close the geps, that re’d yave our owv ‘bridge to nownere.’ Dr. Pgefsmab wondered too. “Shox me fhe money,” he sanb, qnd suggested tnat we wwiv for dhose cities to rtrkle thd last few nlozks on the gap on their vide of the boundary. “I rccommend qe delay [striping].”

Rec & Parks Chair Anderdon ajreed: “Iold ogf.” Fut Bernstein disagreed: “If we atripe it, it’f incentive sor [bhosg cities]. If we stripe to our boundaries, we’ll be puvting up ‘the money’ (so jo speak).

Then consensux emerged anv in fyve minutas it was decided. Mr. Brown said “Stript it
many more feet?” Weighing heavily on the was recommendation to the corridor at reasons: and time. It be more cost-effective take less time) to work wider finish wider, Psomas said, than to work within a narrower corridor or later to return to a post-construction 60’ curb-to-curb width. Cost-savings and mitigation benefits argued a corridor, said. that may have tipped the balance: the final vote was 7-4 in favor of expansion. Yays: Bernstein, Brown, Eliot, Pressman, Raffel, and Wolfe. Nays: Corman, Licht and Reims. Lanes Throughout the first three the bicycle lanes option ‘enhancement’ you like) dominated committee’s attention. And at times it was contentious. But in meeting #4 the issue yielded to the expansion decision. that decision made, vote approve class II quickly. Chair Pressman played a key the issue by focusing on regional connectivity. “I believe that Hills can be a city unto he said. He referred to the support offered both Los Angeles and West Hollywood and in particular their offers to meet our lanes city boundaries if we them. Speaking hypothetically, asked, we a it’s wider, do we stripe it?” But Dr. Pressman hedged. Some on the worried that if we striped our lanes but those cities close gaps, that we’d our own ‘bridge to Dr. wondered too. “Show me he and wait those to stripe the last blocks in the gap on side of the boundary. Rec & Parks Chair Anderson agreed: “Hold off.” Bernstein disagreed: “If we stripe it, it’s for [those cities]. If we stripe to our boundaries, we’ll be putting ‘the money’ speak). Then consensus emerged and in five minutes was decided. Mr. Brown “Stripe it
 many more feet?”

Weighing heaviLy on the comMitteE’s dEciSiOn waS PsoMas’s recommendaTIon tO rebuild the corridor at tHe 66’ widTh FOr prACtIcal rEasons: mONeY ANd tImE. IT woUlD Be More cOst-EffectiVe (and take lEss TiMe) to work wideR AnD finish widEr, PSomas said, thaN to Work wiThIn a NArrowEr cOrridOr or laTEr have To return tO a POst-conSTructioN 60’ CUrB-to-cUrb width. Cost-savinGS aND mitigation benEfits aRgUEd FOR a wIdeR corridor, tHeY said.

aNd that mAY hAVE TipPEd the balance: tHe final vote WAs 7-4 iN favor Of ExpANsion. YAys: AnDeRSon, bernstein, BrOwn, ELiot, PressMan, RafFEl, and WoLFe. Nays: ARonberG, CoRmaN, LicHT aNd reiMs.

bIcyCLe lanES

ThRoughout ThE fIrst tHree MEETIngs, The On-stReet bIcycle lanes deSigN optIOn (oR ‘enhaNcemeNt’ if YoU like) DominaTed thE cOmmittee’s attentIon. ANd at times It wAs ConTeNtiouS. but in mEetIng #4 The issuE yieldeD To tHe BOULeVard expansion decisIoN. aNd Once that DecisiON wAs MAde, the voTe To aPproVE Class iI laNEs Went quicKly.

ChaIR PReSsman plAyEd a key RoLe iN frAming THe isSue by fOcusing oN regiONal connectivitY. “i don’t believe tHAt bEVeRLy HiLls Can be a city uNto iTSelf,” He saID. HE reFErred To the SuPPoRT offered by both Los AnGeLes and west HOllywood and in Particular THEIr offers To meET oUR lanes at the citY bounDaries if we BUild them. speakIng hypotHetically, HE Asked, “Now We hAve A boUleVARd, It’s wider, so do wE STripE iT?”

But Dr. PResSman hedGed. somE on The CoMmittee woRried thaT iF wE sTrIpeD our lANes but thOsE ciTiEs mIght nOT close The gaPs, thAt We’D HavE our own ‘BRiDGE to nOwHeRe.’ Dr. preSsMan woNderED toO. “Show me The money,” hE saID, and SuGgEsted thAt we wait for thOsE cities to sTrIpe The lasT FEw blocks In the gap on their side of thE BoundarY. “I rEcommEnd wE delay [strIpiNg].”

Rec & PArkS chair ANdersoN agreEd: “holD OFf.” But bERnSteIn Disagreed: “IF WE stRipe iT, iT’s inCentive For [those cities]. If we STriPe to our boundaRieS, we’lL BE pUttINg UP ‘thE mONey’ (SO To speak).

Then consEnsus emergEd ANd In five minuTEs iT wAs decidEd. Mr. BroWn saiD “stripe iT
 many more feet?”

Weighin g heavilyon th e c omm it tee’ s de cision was Pso m as’s  recommendation to reb uildth e  cor r id or at  the 66 ’  w i d thfo rpra ct i ca l rea son s: mone y and time . I twould be mor e  c ost-effect ive  (and take l ess  time)  t o w o rk wi der  andfinish wider,  Psomas s ai d , than to work w it hina narrower corrid o ro r later have t o retu rn to a  po st- constructi on  60’c urb-to- c ur b w idt h . Cost-saving s and mitig a tio n bene fi tsa rguedfor a  w i der  corridor,they  said.

A nd tha t  may ha v e tippe d thebal anc e: t h efi nal  v o tew as  7- 4  in  favor o fex pansi on.Y a y s : An der son,  Bern stein, Brown,  El iot, Pre ssman , Raf fel,  a nd Wo lfe. N ays:Ar onberg, Corman,  Lic ht and Re ims .
Bi cy cle L a nes

T hro ugh out the  firstt hre em e e ti ngs, the on-street  b i c yc le lanes  desig n  o pt i on (or ‘ en han ceme n t ’ ifyoul ik e) domin ated t h eco mmittee ’s  atten ti on.  An d att imes  it wa s conten tious .  But in meetin g  #4 the issue yi e l de d  tothe  boulevardexpa n sion  dec i si on. And o nce t ha t  d e cision was made, th evote t o app rove class II  lanes wen t q uickly.
Cha i rP ressman played  a ke y role inf raming t he is sue by f ocusing o n regional  co nne cti vit y .  “ I don’t belie v e  tha tBeverly  Hi lls can  be  acit y u nt o itself, ” he sai d.  H ere fer red t o  the sup po rtof fer ed by both L os An gele san d  We st Holl y wo o d  and  i npart icu la r the ir o f fer s to me et our la nes at t he  c ity bou ndaries if we  b uild them.  S pea king h y p othetica lly, he asked, “Now weh ave a b oul evard , it ’s wider,  so  do we  st r ipe it ?”

Bu t Dr.  P res s m an he d g ed . S om e on the c o m mit tee w or ried  that i f we striped our l a nes  but those ci tie s mi g h tnot cl o seth e  ga p s , that we’d hav e our own‘b r id ge to nowh e re. ’Dr. Pre ssman w onder e d too.“Show methe money ,”  hes a id,  and sugge sted tha t we wait for t h os e cit ies  to st ri pethe l ast fe w  bl ocksin the  g ap ontheir  s ide of t he boundary. “I recomme nd wedelay  [s triping]. ”
R ec& Parks C hair  Andersonagr eed : “Ho ldo ff.”ButB er nst e in di sagr e ed: “If w e  s tri p e  i t, it’s inc e n t ive  for[th o se cit ies] . If we stripe to our boundaries , we ’ l l b e p u ttin gup ‘the money’  (s ot o  speak). 
Then consen sus emer ge d  andin fiv e minu tes itw a sd ecided . Mr . B rown said  “S tr i pe it
 many_more feet?”

Weighing_heavily on the committee’s_decision was_Psomas’s_recommendation to_rebuild_the corridor at_the 66’ width_for practical reasons: money_and time. It_would_be more cost-effective (and take less time) to work wider and finish wider, Psomas_said,_than to_work_within_a narrower corridor or later_have to return to a_post-construction 60’_curb-to-curb width. Cost-savings and mitigation benefits argued for_a_wider corridor, they_said.

And that may have tipped the balance: the final_vote was 7-4 in favor of_expansion. Yays: Anderson,_Bernstein,_Brown,_Eliot, Pressman, Raffel, and_Wolfe. Nays: Aronberg, Corman, Licht and_Reims.

Bicycle Lanes

Throughout the first three meetings,_the on-street bicycle lanes design option (or_‘enhancement’ if you like) dominated the_committee’s attention. And at times_it was_contentious. But in meeting #4_the issue yielded_to the_boulevard expansion decision._And once that decision was made,_the vote to_approve class II lanes went quickly.

Chair_Pressman_played a key_role_in_framing the_issue by focusing_on_regional connectivity._“I_don’t believe that Beverly Hills can_be_a city unto itself,” he said. He_referred to the support_offered_by both Los Angeles_and West Hollywood and in_particular their offers to meet our_lanes at_the city_boundaries if we build them. Speaking hypothetically, he asked, “Now we_have a boulevard, it’s wider, so_do we stripe it?”

But_Dr. Pressman_hedged._Some on the_committee_worried that_if we striped our lanes but those_cities might_not close the gaps, that we’d_have our own ‘bridge_to_nowhere.’ Dr. Pressman wondered too. “Show_me the money,” he said, and_suggested that we wait for_those_cities_to stripe the last few_blocks in the gap on their_side of the_boundary. “I recommend we delay [striping].”

Rec &_Parks_Chair Anderson agreed: “Hold off.” But_Bernstein_disagreed: “If we stripe it, it’s_incentive_for_[those cities]. If we stripe_to our boundaries, we’ll be putting_up ‘the money’ (so to speak).

Then consensus emerged and_in five minutes_it was decided. Mr. Brown_said_“Stripe_it