Quantcast
Friday, April 18, 2014

New Northeast L.A. bike lanes will leave motorists seeing red

Photo by Mark Hogan/Flickr

A proposal to make room for bike lanes on Colorado Boulevard in Eagle Rock and Figueroa Street in Highland Park and Cypress Park will encourage  bike riding and bike safety but will also lead to more delays and congestion for anyone riding in a car, truck or bus.  Those are some of the findings in a draft Environmental Impact Report that looks at the fallout from the city’s effort to add nearly 40 miles of bike lanes under the first year of a five-year bike plan. “The proposed projects would create significant and unavoidable impacts related to transportation – traffic and circulation,” according to the study.

In the case of a five mile stretch of North Figueroa and a three mile length of Colorado Boulevard,  adding a bike lane would mean giving up a traffic lane.  Here, according to the report, is how the streets would change when lanes are restriped to include room for bikes:

Colorado Boulevard – Eagle Rock

The proposed project would eliminate one lane in each direction from Sierra Villa Drive to Avenue 64.

Figueroa Street – Cypress Park

The proposed project would involve the reduction of motor vehicle lanes on North Figueroa Street; from San Fernando Road to the State Route (SR) 110 ramps, the two northbound lanes would be reduced to a single northbound lane.

From the SR-110 ramps to Pasadena Avenue, though the existing lane configuration could be retained with bare minimum widths to allow for bike lanes, the proposed project would remove one southbound lane to allow for buffered bike lanes.

Figueroa Street – Highland Park

From Pasadena Avenue to York Boulevard, the two southbound lanes would be reduced to a single southbound lane, still allowing for buffered bike lanes.

Figueroa Street – Garvanza/Eagle Rock

From York Boulevard to Colorado Boulevard, both northbound and southbound lanes would be reduced from two to one, allowing for standard bike lanes. This will effectuate the implementation of continuous parking on both sides of the street, which under existing conditions, alternates from one side to the other. A center left turn lane would be retained along the full length of the corridor.

The report, conducted under the direction of the city’s Planning Department, warned that the bike plan would result in “potentially significant impacts”  and  increased delays at several major intersections along Colorado and Figueroa.  With fewer lanes devoted to cars and trucks, the study suggested that the Department of Transportation monitor residential side streets to deal with any increase in traffic coming off  major boulevards.

Click here for a street-by-street review of the impact caused by the bike plan.

63 comments

  1. This is exactly why I say the forced change from cars to bikes is a boondoggle and immoral.

    • Absolutely. And FORCED is the key word here. No one is choosing it — that’s why hardly anyone chooses to ride a bicycle in the first place. This is just a MINDLESS fad that is being used dangerously to justify wild overbuilding.

      In fact, just last week the City Council voted to reduce the amount of car parking required for any kind of development. For every four bicycle spots provided (the space of less than half a car parking space), the builder can provide one less car space — and build ever more on what otherwise would have been the parking for the people who will be moving in. This is insane. Proceeding with building under this kind of insanity rule will greatly burden residents of this city for many, many decades to come. Once built so wrongly like that, you cannot change course later and add the necessary spaces.

      This city is way too big to think people can use bicycles for normal activities. Bicycles are for pleasure riding, not commuting to work, to doing the grocery shopping, or even dressing up and going out to dinner some evening. But the Fantasyland planning mindset that has taken hold of the City Council would have you riding a bicycle for everything. Of course, I haven’t seen a single one of them ride a bicycle to work! I haven’t even seen a single on take the bus.

      • As someone who rides a bicycle and does not own a car, I strongly disagree with all the points you made. You, in fact, CAN use a bicycle to commute to work, buy groceries, and – believe it or not – even wear something nice and go out to dinner. While it may be hard to believe for someone who has never rode a bicycle in an urban setting, we should not limit our imaginations of what is possible without having experienced any of these possibilities. It is insulting to assume that one cannot use alternative methods for “normal activities”. Furthermore, you should not deny people a space to travel simply because you own a car. You do not have a right to all the road space simply because you drive a car. Obviously there is a demand for this infrastructure or else it would not be addressed at all. Perhaps more people would ride bicycles if the streets were safer and there were more bike lanes. If you want to travel in a place free of bicycle and pedestrians, stick to the freeways.

        • You’ve taken your “imagination” to Fantasyland. For one thing, he never said it cant; be done. The point is, no one wants to do it, especially since most people have long commutes. If they wanted to do it, they already would be doing it, nothing is stopping them.

          No one wants to try to carry an entire trunk full of groceries for the week on a bicycle — even if it can be done. And I’ll guarantee you, you will be hard pressed to get a date to a nice restaurant if she learns she will have to bicycle it, heels and all!

          And no one is stopping you from doing it if you want to. But don’t you be forcing that on us.

          • Henry,
            I think you have to admit that one possible reason people might not be currently biking is that they view the current infrastructure as inadequate or unsafe. So in that sense, there’s a real argument to be made that there is something stopping them and you look foolish for suggesting otherwise.

            I can also personally refute your other claims. I do almost all of my grocery shopping by bike, and I strongly suspect an inability to understand why others might act differently than oneself is a bigger obstacle to getting a date to a nice restaurant than riding a bicycle. A recent date responded to my telling her that I mostly bike by remarking “oh that’s why you’re in such good shape.” My 21st century date drove herself, which is odd since apparently there’s somebody out there forcing others to bike, maybe she’s got some kind of exemption, or maybe, every single road is still open to cars.

            Happy trails.

          • I think Henry raises good points here. Everyone says that you can do things like grocery shopping and go to work on bikes. If you are shopping for a large family you cannot, and if you work at a professional job (not barista) you are not at liberty to show up to work sweaty or to wear a nice suit on a bike. That is madness. I know everyone wants to think we live in Amsterdam or Portland. We don’t. We have hills.

            We should be fighting tooth and nail against this sort of planning. People will ride bikes when it makes sense. They do not need incentives from the government. How can we fight this encroachment?

          • Hills and hot weather. And I do love bikes, btw, I own four and I ride at least once a week. But for fun. This whole idea might be nice for a 22 year old, but I am a grown man with real responsibilities. People count on me to be prompt and not sweaty.

          • I really get tired of reading these “a large family can’t shop with a bike” comments.

            Seriously, dude? Seriously?

            This is me helping my friend move his house:

            http://www.flickr.com/photos/ubrayj02/6917316025/in/set-72157603569535466

            I darn well can fit a week’s worth of groceries in there – for a “large” family or a small one.

            I am so glad your knowledge is not the boundary by which we collectively set our expectations.

      • Mark,

        At first I thought you were writing these things as a sort of sarcastic rebuke to “Harold”. Seeing similar words written with your name further down the page of comments leads me to believe that you think it is “insane” to think that bicycles represent a practical means of moving people in L.A.

        Imagine LA with snow, ice, salted roads, high winds, and extremely short days. Imagine riding a bike to drop the kids off at preschool, go to work and then picking up groceries on the way home after grabbing the kids.

        Insane! Madness! Can’t be done!

        I only have one kid, but I have been doing things like the above since 2007 in LA (without the snow, ice, etc.) using a cargo bike from Amsterdam.

        Parents in Holland and Denmark are riding in the snow and ice right now with their kids, groceries, in work clothes – and they are sweating nor are they figments of their own imaginations.

        They are, like me and a growing number of people in this city and others, regular people riding bikes to do regular things. It isn’t a hardship, and we’re generally not doing it “for the planet” but because it is fun and it makes sense from a quality of life and financial perspective.

        For the city, we represent happier people who are intrinsically less likely to call in sick for work, more likely to be engaged in our community, more likely to spend in locally owned shops, and to have more disposable income which we are more likely to spend on small purchases throughout the week – adding up to more in total dollars than a weeks worth of car-only groceries.

        Members of the City Council have ridden bikes to work – Jose Huizar is one that comes to mind first. Others have as well.

        This isn’t a “fad” – it is the general arc of history taking back the streets from the brief reign of private automobiles and restoring it to more democratic purposes: people walking and other on bikes or taking public transit.

  2. Potentially significant impacts = car driver delays of 1 minute, 2 minutes, 30 minutes driving the entire length of the route?

    In 10+ years of traffic count data on N. Figueroa St., the only portions of the street that “need” the current width are the corners directly connected to the 110: Avenue 52, and Avenue 26. The rest of the road is over-designed for cars. People speed only to be held up at red lights.

    Delays in the morning rush hour are partially a result of an uneven traffic flow along the length of the street. If the road width reduction were coupled with some judicious signal timing to compensate for the southbound traffic back-up in the morning, I think that we’d have a safer street.

    And why is motorist delay on surface streets such a big deal anyway?! There are kids walking to school all up and down Figueroa. There are parks. There are shops – cafes, restaurants, etc. with the majority of their clientele walking to their doors. The money these businesses take in and the property values of the commercial real estate here have a big role to play in balancing our city budget.

    Someone looking to blast through the neighborhood in a car should take the train or the freeway. Streets are for people.

    • That is a very ridiculous comment about cars blasting through. They are simply doing the speed limit. Why should we intentionally be creating a situation where traffic is jammed up it can’t even go at half the speed limit? There is no danger to any pedestrians — school kids or other — from driving the speed limit. In fact, the speed limit is specifically required by law to be at a safe speed as determined by various scientific standards, not dangerous to anyone. You just out of Fantasyland make up stories about people being endangered by it. That’s just ridiculous.

      • If you watch traffic on Figueroa near Pasadena Avenue and South through Cypress Park you’ll see that most drivers are travelling above the speed limit.

      • The amount of delay on a private motorist, during peak hour commute times, driving the ENTIRE length of N. Figueroa St. would be an additional 2 minutes.

        The speed limit is NOT set by “science”, it is set by the Manual of Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD) through the use of an Engineering and Traffic Study (E&TS). The E&TS is a car-centric procedure which has seen year after year of speed limit increases through the heart of Los Angeles’ residential and commercial districts, with no heed paid to the safety and quality of life of residents affected by dangerously fast urban car speeds.

        A great example of the safety impacts a 20 mph speed vs. a 35 mph speed can have: when a pedestrian is hit by a car going 20 mph they have an almost 90% chance of surviving; when a pedestrian is hit by a car going 35 mph the pedestrian has a 60% chance of surviving. When the speeds increase, the rate of pedestrian deaths during a collision go up.

        Is it Fantasyland to know the law? Is it Fantasyland to use scientific surveys of car crash data to arrive at fact based conclusions about safety? Is it Fantasyland to balance the needs of citizens in their own city to have the right to enjoy siad city over the rights of a few tow travel 2 minutes faster through the core residential & commercial corridor? We’ll leave that decision for the city council. I’ll see you there.

  3. Traffic calming will stop some people from out of the area from using Highland Park as merely a commuter route. It will initially be a mess, however, as Pasadena and South Pasadena commuters have to find a new and “faster” route.

    One of the idiot claims of the NIMBY No on 710 Freeway group is that Figueroa Street would be a perfect substitute for the 710 Freeway. This is the kind of disrespect that hysterical Pasadena and South Pasadena matrons behind this group carry for Highland Park. We are merely their substitute freeway because they think their community is more important that any other one.

    Those hypocrites say that we all should use “alternate and multi-modes of transportation” to commute in lieu of building a 710 Freeway connection, but watch them scream like stuck pigs when Figueroa is narrowed and traffic calmed to accommodate one of those alternate transportation modes.

    • The traffic is already calm. But you are going to turn it into road rage.

      • The 40 second peak hour delay in downtown Highland Park is going to push car drivers over the edge, eh? Well watch out, LA! We’re going to have us a road rage epidemic because people can actually carry on a conversation on the sidewalk without having to shout over the roar of traffic.

  4. I totally support bike lanes in general, and I don’t drive, but what impact will this have on the 81 bus that runs along Figueroa? It is already frequently late, and frequently standing room only. I left 20 minutes early today and was 20 minutes later to work than I should have been, happens to me about once or twice a week. I feel like reducing a traffic lane will make that particular bus line even slower. It’s already miserable.

  5. Thats the old geezers at the DOT breathing their last smog filled gasps. One by one they are croaking in their tailpipe fumes.

    Im so sick of the govt forcing me to depend on a car to get from A to B because of over design freeway streets that encourage speeding from red light to red light.

    Build a comprehensive bike network that connects and watch the car traffic subside.

    Ask yourself how everyone survived dear god almighty with the SINGLE LANES created with the construction at York / Fig and Riverside / Fig bridge?

  6. ubrayj02, I agree with everything you said and could not have said it better myself. Living in Highland Park, I personally drive, walk and bike on York more often than on Figueroa. I have not noticed any serious traffic delays on York since the bike lanes were added, and I drive it at all times of the day. I have noticed that it is much safer and more pleasant to both walk and bike on York and it seems I am not alone in that since I see many other people on the street, patronizing the local businesses and enjoying the neighborhood. Vehicular traffic is only one important consideration of transportation planning and street design. We need to include all options, especially those that are healthier and more sustainable.

  7. How about some actual reporting? You don’t say what any of this means, you fail to note the many positive aspects of both traffic calming and the addition of bike lanes, and you don’t quote any sources but this one report.

    Figueroa is not a highway, and the desires of people who choose to commute on city streets from South Pasadena by car do not outweigh the needs of those who actually live in Los Angeles for safe neighborhood streets and transportation alternatives. If the redesign makes cars travel at safer speeds on Figueroa, I call this a win-win.

  8. Oh let me make some popcorn this is going to be good.

  9. Road diets should be undertaken on lesser used routes – Figueroa is a main artery through Highland Park. It is extremely bus dependent and this will slow down busses, and therefore all traffic as cars stop for busses. Adopting this will push vehicular traffic onto adjoining residential streets, like Monte Vista and Marmion Way, endangering pedestrians. Monte Vista is two blocks west of Figueroa from Ave 61 to Ave 50 – why can’t the bike lanes go there? I live on Marmion in Mt Washington – people already speed down that street to bypass Figueroa going at speeds in excess of 50 mph.

    Biking is still a niche form of transportation – most of us do not have the ability to bike to work, and even if we did, we do not have the desire. We all pay taxes – why should a minority of bicyclists get priority over the multitudes more drivers?

    • You bring up a great point, and bus pick up and drop off, as well as delays, are not taken up by this report. This is, sadly, the way things are still done for nearly every project in LA that isn’t being funded specifically to speed up buses.

      More needs to be done to focus on transit riders! Among other reasons, they are the 2nd most common user group to shop and dine in Highland Park behind people walking from their nearby homes.

    • Priority? No one is talking about removing all of the car lanes, but you’re proposing excluding any bike lanes. I haven’t seen any evidence that this will slow down buses, which travel the speed limit unlike most cars on Figueroa, and surely you’re aware that buses pull over to the side of the road to pick up passengers rather than stopping in the middle of it . . .

  10. We’ve become a nation of creampuff tubsters with motorized loungechairs strapped to our asses. USA USA USA

  11. Highland Park has some serious traffic flow issues, many of which are caused by an out-dated freeway running through it. The reason for major congestion on Figueroa is the amount of people driving exceeds the capacity of the alloted routes. The solution is to 1. Build wider thoroughfares. or 2. Discourage driving. City planners know that number 1 is NOT the solution (We’ve been doing that for fifty years. Has traffic improved?). History shows us that (at least where roads are concerned), if you build them, people will come. The idea that roads are solely for automobile drivers is as silly as those that thought they were only for horses nearly a century ago. Bicycle riders, and users of mass transit save everyone time and allow us cleaner air by NOT taking their car out on the road. Something has to give. The solution isn’t simple, and as with most complex solutions, there will be winners and losers. Try riding a bike next week…You’ll see a different side of the equation, and who knows? You might even work off last night’s dinner!

    • Highland Park does not have some serious traffic flow issues. Or rather, it only has them at peak hours at Avenue 52 and Avenue 26 and occasionally at York and Avenue 43. Based on over 10 years of LADOT traffic count data, though designated a Major Highway Class II which is designed for 30,000 to 50,000 car a day, N. Figueroa typically receives between 20,000 to 22,000 cars each day. The congested areas clog up in the a.m. peak hours and their total volume of cars is around 26,000 to 28,000 total for the day.

      On a road designed fro 30,000 to 50,000 cars a day to only get 20k to 29k is laughable when you say we have traffic flow issues. 12,000 cars in a single lane is more than acceptable – but we have two lanes in each direction. Car speeds run counter to the interests of local businesses, run counter to commercial property values, and run counter to the safety of children and adults shopping and going about their lives by walking or riding a bike. Whose interests do they serve? We have a freeway – no signal, no intersections – use that to speed! Our streets should be adding money to the city coffers, not sinking in into high vacancy rates and lowest common denominator retail.

  12. I’d like to add that I agree the bike lanes on York are great and that it’s a pleasant and relatively safe street to walk along. I support bike lanes on Figueroa, but I wish there were some serious concern for the effect it will have on the 81. It’s crammed morning and night, late, just a miserable ride in general. Adding traffic will only make it worse.

  13. This report fails to mention how much SAFER and FASTER it will be for people that bike everywhere. So maybe drivers will have to slow down a bit, but biking down some of these streets now is hazardous.

    Let’s all just get along – leave room for everyone!

  14. Figure 3-11 in the report linked to above show the delay in seconds – which, if you were to drive the street after the project was implemented on North Figueroa would amount to about 2.5 minutes of additional delay.

    The report also cited research which states on page 3-5 that:

    “The addition of bicycle lanes on arterial streets is shown to reduce the risk of serious injuries by about 30 percent, while the upgrade to fully protected bicycle lanes or cycle tracks reduce the risk of injury by 90 percent. Of 68 cities across California with highest per capita pedestrian and bicycle collisions, per capita injury rates to pedestrians and bicyclists are shown to fall precipitously revealing a non-linear relationship of bicycle safety as the level of bicycling increases. This study showed as much as an eightfold variation of collisions (expressed as a percentage of those that bike or walk to work) in comparing low and high bicycling cities.”

    The report also states on page 3-6:

    “Health experts maintain that thirty minutes a day of utilitarian bicycling (replacing short distance trips of five miles or less) constitutes the adequate level of ‘moderate intensity’ of activity shown to produce the optimal health benefits that include lower blood pressure as well as lower incidents of obesity, diabetes, heart disease and other diseases.”

    This is the justification for a backbone bike network, and motorist delay seems like a tiny price to pay (it is) for the fast, inexpensive, gains the city makes with these lanes.

    There are lanes on Cesar Chavez that will make Union Station more accessible. There are lanes on 7th Street that will move Downtown bike traffic to Staples Center, union station, and the civic center. The Venice Blvd bike lane will finally be extended into Downtown.

    This is what a city under the leadership of real captain of “Green” looks like. Villaraigosa won a legacy he can boast about for the rest of his career.

  15. I would love to see bike lanes on Colorado Blvd. in Eagle Rock. People drive way to fast with the way the street is currently configured. Slowing car traffic down some would be a good thing not a bad thing, and if there are safe bike lanes I will be able to bike to Trader Joe’s etc.

  16. Sure, adding a bike lane may cause an extra minute or two delay at certain intersections– we can expect that. But adding bike lanes also make the street safer, the draft EIR mentioned in this article projects 30% reduction in crashes if I recall correctly. As we all know, oftentimes the worst delays – rush hour or not – occur when there’s been an unexpected, tragic car crash. By improving safety on Colorado Boulevard and North Figueroa Street – some of the most notorious streets in NELA – we’ll see fewer crashes and as a result see fewer unexpected traffic delays.

    We will always be forced to make a decision. The decision we’re contemplating now is: do we want safer, more humane streets that will allow for residents to travel comfortably by bicycle if they so desire? Or do we want to maintain the status quo (which isn’t that great to begin with) and have motoring be our only viable transportation option?

    • The delay is something like 2+ minutes for someone driving the ENTIRE LENGTH of N. FIgueroa. For most motorists, it is going to be a lot less than that – and that is supposing that the same volume of cars uses our surface streets as a high speed a.m. commute route.

  17. Commuting on Bicycle usually gets me from point A to point B almost as fast as driving (Echo Park to Culver City cycling 50 minutes, car 40 minutes). Car drivers should want less cars on the road & support Cycling.

    • Its about the same amount of time because you run through red lights and stop signs. The vote should be left to those who live in highland park.

      This is not Silver Lake. Stop comparing. I have lived here for over 20 years and i dont want to see more traffic on Fig. Bicyclists, use York.

  18. I agree with Echo Park ’67 – my bike commute from Silverlake to South Park used to take the same amount of time as the drive… perhaps if the bus route experiences delays by the elimination of a lane, the ridership could request metro rapid buses on the same route (or do they already exist)?

  19. The gold line is FAST and efficient. We need more bike lanes, walking routes, etc. I drive, but by making that choice to drive, I also understand I will sit in traffic. I say, more power to the folks that are willing to ride a bike to get around. Let’s move over and give them their space!

  20. There is a bike path that runs along the arroyo. Use that. Traffic is bad enough as it is on N Fig and cutting it down would be catastrophic. The road closure at Griffith Park and Sunset has caused the traffic to be backed up at times to Benton way. Not saying that there is no place anywhere in the city but major commuter arteries need to be kept clear for cars and buses.

    • There is a freeway that runs along the arroyo. Use that. (It’s actually complete and connects to places unlike the arroyo seco bike path which only is only useful for recreational purposes.) Traffic is bad enough as it is on North Figueroa and maintaining the status quo will only make things worse.

      Maintaing the status quo means maintaing an unacceptable number of crashes, degrading our air quality by driving everywhere, demolishing beauty in the neighborhood to accommodate more parking lots and strip malls, and reducing opportunities for physical exercise among our youth.

      We need to get away from our reliance on motoring, nobody in their right mind will debate this. No this single bike lane will not create a massive modal shift but we need to start somewhere and Northeast LA could be a great, pleasant place to cycle for daily necessities and enjoyment.

  21. Angelenos with long commutes have already made their beds. Alternative forms of transportation, whether biking or public transpo, need to be established at some point. Suck it up commuters or move closer to work. I know it sucks, but you’ll get over it. This is future of Los Angeles.

    • You are so wrong, so deluded. You think like my five year old grandson.

      • bob wilsons grandson

        Ah shuks, grandpa, why the bitterness? Just think, I’ll have so many more options for commuting when I’m older. I won’t have to sit in a car for over an hour everyday and come home anxious and agitated. Bike commuting will keep away that dreaded belly fat and save me tons of money (gas, car insurance, up-keep). I even saw a three wheeler that would be prefect for you. So, your sacrifice now is for my future. Don’t you want what’s best for my future?

  22. Car traffic is NOT going to diminish.

    Reducing car lanes will only add to L. A. congestion. Cars aren’t going away. As the city grows, more people will be driving cars than riding bikes. There is no way that bikes (or even buses and trains) will out-number cars . People LOVE their cars….sorry.

    Bikes riding is great and a viable means of transportation; but thinking/wishing/hoping it will over-take driving as the main means of transportatin is ridiculous.

    I’m a vegan, and it would be like me thinking meat eaters are giving up eating meat, (for the greater good….and I really do want/wish it would happen), a few peeps might, but it ain’t gonna happen.

    • Car traffic in the US is diminishing. Vehicle Miles Travelled peaked in 2005-2006 and has been on the decline since then.

      Bikes are viable means of transportation once the proper bike lane networks are established – as has been evidenced in countries around the world from Bogota, Columbia to Hangzhou, China.

      As stated in the DEIR report linked to above, bike ridership in LA has increased at a rate greater than expected given the previously glacial pace of new bike facilities being installed in LA. There is growing population of people who are choosing to ride a bike for everyday reasons and the government ought to be whole heartedly supporting that. We’ve already gone down the road of throwing all available resources at private cars – and it is a financial dead end. It is time to try something that has a chance at helping to right the ship of state.

  23. Why can’t the bikes lanes be one block west on Marmion Way? It’s used very little since the gold line was put in.

  24. Go to a city like Berlin to see how it CAN work to create transportation that blends modes and is efficient. In all the time I have spent there I never got in a car and I moved throughout the City at will with bike, bus, and trains. This weekend I took my bike from the house in Elysian Valley to the 26th st Gold Line station to Union Station to San Bernardino and back. It was pleasant and everything was on time. With a $10 Metrolink weekend pass, the back and forth cost less than the total driving cost would have been. I read a book and played a table game with my son on the Metrolink. It was a very promising experience.

    The tide is going this way and I think it makes perfect sense.

  25. People want bicycle lanes. People aren’t going to stop driving. I will not redesign my entire life so that I can ride a bike. That is ludicrous FOR ME. Some are willing and USUALLY, these are people who work closer to home and do not have much to carry. Some have large beautiful homes with larger families that cannot be carried on a bicycle. Some have disabilities.
    Bicycle lanes can be added but not at the expense of people getting in and out of their neighborhoods. Figueroa would be a great bike thoroughfare, but NOT a good street to remove car lanes from. There are SEVEN streets that have only ONE entrance and no light to get in and out of the neighborhoods. And 164 metro buses daily. A road diet is not going to help these residents, only the 50-100 bikers that travel through each day.

  26. Ugh! I’m born and raised in HP and love bike riding, but this is a disaster. Honestly, can’t people ride their bikes one block over in the residential area? I’ve been rear ended TWICE on York in one year and both times the driver said the lanes were too crowded, there was so much going on, and they got nervous cuz a bike rider came up the side. The streets are too narrow now and there are more businesses. I started going to The York and HPK but stopped. It’s not worth the hassle. It’s back to Pasadena and south pas for me! Besides, all the hassles with art night, and closing MorYork. UGH! We’re a small town with lots of cool stuff going on, but we just can never get it together enough to be logical and make things work. Too bad.

  27. What I don’t understand is that we have the Arroyo Seco, why not invest in creating a bike lane that utilizes a space that would not affect driving. We are a car city, and forcing cyclist to ride along angery drivers is not good. I have already had to cyclist run into the back of my car because they were too high to be aware of a red light. We don’t have the law enforecement to monitor cyclist.

    Also want I don’t understand, is that both Colorado and Eagel Rock Blvd. have the incredibly large island in the middle of the road. Why is this not being utilized?!

  28. When you start testing and licensing people so they can ride their bikes on busy public streets, and charge them a fee like we pay for our vehicle registration and requiring them to have insurance, I will support expanding bike lanes. I have a small business in HPK and twice i have been in accidents involving reckless cyclists who think they own the road and everyone should watch out for them, but they don’t have to follow the laws. One cyclist hit my (thankfully I was just inching forward) when they decided to go around me on the right and make a left turn, the second time , on Figueroa north of York, a group of cyclists traveling at night decided to suddenly to spread out and take up more lanes, forcing two cars to swerve and one hit me. Did the cyclists stay to take responsibility or pay for our damages, of course not, they just rode off into the night. As for the so-called business advantage to people on bikes, I don’t see it. If you sell food or drink, maybe, but I’d rather have a customer in a car who can carry more so they buy more. I don’t need anymore cyclists using the sidewalk in front of business as a place to hang out.

    • Well said. I want to see license plates on these bikes. They should pay insurance. Follow the law. Wear a helmet. Stop at stop signs and red lights. Businesses, you can keep your usuals or lose them to the once a month bike rider. Again, the people that actually live in 90042 should be the ones to vote

  29. I’ve lived in L.A for 10 years. I drive a big cargo van. I cover 30-60 miles a day (or more) carrying 600 lbs of gear and a worker while following clients from job-sites. Not possible in a bike.

    Still, it’s hard to quantify, but quality of life truly improves when we have more than a car option. I’ve spent a fair amount of time in Holland, and I’ve seen first-hand that a country that promotes bicycling and public travel is more pleasant to live in. This silly animosity between cars and bicycles does not really exist as far as I know. This clash of culture in the US between car and bicycle is saddening and ridiculous.
    People also drive better. I’ve never hit a bicycle with my van, but I’ve been hit several times by careless car-drivers while biking ( thank goodness, nothing serious!)

    I do ride a 4-stroke scooter for personal driving (10 times cheaper, less pollution, easier to find parking and often faster!). I also create less congestion with my scooter than the van. See how many cars are single-driver vehicles next time you are outside! Take an actual count..and maybe you will understand what our cycling citizenry has been saying all along. As car drivers, I think we’re already aware of the reality we create; we just aren’t comfortable with it. All those single-driver cars take up a lot of space and are creating insane jams.
    We just got ranked #1 for worst traffic in the nation again for 2012. Nothing to be proud about.

    As a motorist, while it may not benefit me directly (except for more eye candy: ), I would encourage the city to build bike lanes.

    Plenty of people ride bikes year-long through snow, wind and frost.
    I lived in Chicago and Virginia without a car before moving here. I did just fine without one. When I was younger, my girlfriend’s roommate would drive to school and I would bike, and I would still arrive before her, even though it was a 30 minute bike ride. Without a car, I was able to go out a lot : no car or insurance payments, no meters and no parking tickets ( we know that L.A. looooves to give street sweeping tickets). If I knew I might get sweaty, I would freshen up in the bathroom and change my shirt before work – not a big deal.

  30. Ha ha ha…Portlandia.

    Ubrayj02 picture link above.

  31. I understand that some people drive and are never going to be bike riders. I could wish for different but I do live in the real world. Cutting out car lanes to make bike lanes is just going to piss these people off. But I do believe that more people would bike if it were safer and easier. A network of bike paths would be amazing, and one day I expect to live somewhere much more bike friendly.

    LA/Southern California developed around railways, which everyone used to ride before cars became the next big thing, and they were phased out in favor of highways that the government built–by raising our vehicle registration fees (one thing I really hate about car ownership). There are plenty of large cities that have a great system of public transit–why can’t LA be one of them–again?

  32. I have a disability, need my car to get even a few blocks, and can not use a bicycle because of my disability.

    I STILL think the bike lanes are a fabulous idea.

    Because anything that creates a slower way of life is better for neighborhoods. The time I lose on the road is the time I gain when sharing my space and getting to know those around me.

  33. where do you work? i ask because you can take the alternative 83.

Post a Comment

Please keep your comments civil and on topic and refrain from personal attacks. The moderator reserves the right to edit or delete any comments. The Eastsider's Terms of Use and Privacy Policy apply to comments submitted by readers. Required fields are marked *

*

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>