Councilman Cedillo blocks bike lanes on Figueroa

By Nathan Solis

After several months of community meetings and deliberation, Councilman Gil Cedillo has for now indefinitely halted  plans to install  bicycle lanes on Figueroa Street in Cypress Park and Highland Park, a proposal that would have required the removal of a lane for motor vehicle traffic.

In a letter sent this week to his constituents in Council District 1 Cedillo,  says he is concerned about the safety for all those who travel along this corridor – pedestrians, bikers and drivers. “With that said, I will be deferring the implementation of any bike lanes on Figueroa until I can ensure all residents who travel along this corridor will be safe.”

The letter goes on to list several elements that will be focused on by the councilman’s office, including a reconfiguration of traffic signals, installation of crosswalks and more curb ramps.  The letter,  however, does not say how long Cedillo will defer making a decision on the bike lanes.

Earlier this week a group of concerned residents marched to Cedillo’s Highland Park field office decked in Dia De Los Muertos face paint to prompt a decision on a safer Figueroa Street.

The proposed bike lanes and “road diet” would restripe  Figueroa to create bicycle lanes from Avenue 26 to Avenue 52. The bike lanes would also remove a single vehicle lane, which many opponents say would create more vehicle traffic.

The deliberation and debate over the bike lanes included two  public meetings over the issue, the first being a chaotic and  unorganized gathering in Cypress Park and the second a  lackluster event in Highland Park, filled with police officers standing over the audience who were not allowed to speak on the issue.

Nathan Solis is a Highland Park resident who writes about and photographs the L.A. music scene. You can find more of Solis’ stories, reviews and photos at Avenue Meander.

Eastsider Ads


  1. Cedillo has proven himself to be a sleazy, reactionary politician and will be a goner in the next election. Not just because of blocking traffic calming on fig but also for allowing homeless camps to quadruple in the arroyo since the murder that happened there a couple months ago. Oh, and his office looks like a check cashing place.

  2. What a flip-flop… I hope this guys gets the boot next election cycle!

  3. As much as I detest the man and bemoan Jose Gardea’s every day, I have to say he’s right on this. Figueroa just can’t afford the lanes. Colorado Blvd, yes, Figueroa, no.

    • If you expect Cedillo to rule based on a concern about your convenience as a car driver, you are out of luck. The bike lane project as planned wouldn’t have made a dent in car travel times.

      This has nothing to do with car traffic, this has to do with people like you being afraid that a watered down bike lane project is an affront to what you view as normal.

      This district is going to be a shambles by the time Cedillo is finished with it. The Southwest Museum? Hah. Dodger Stadium traffic issues? Keep it coming! The LA River $1 billion? ‘Grats on handing him a slush fund.

      He is in office because he likes being in office. He gets people to carry his things for him, he gets a nice $160,000 salary and a staff of 20. He gets access to power, and he get to respond to issues of the day that he has no legal power to affect.

      Here is a video of Cedillo dancing around talking about how in love he is with bike safety during the 2013 election:


      The guy is 100% committed to staying in office and our health, happiness, well-being, safety, convenience – none of that matters.

      • You keep claiming that road diets do not affect travel time – this is not entirely the truth. Please check out the DOT analysis:

        Under most average daily traffic (ADT) conditions tested, road diets have minimal effects on vehicle capacity, because left-turning vehicles are moved into a common two-way left-turn lane.(1,2) However, for road diets with ADTs above approximately 20,000 vehicles, there is a greater likelihood that traffic congestion will increase to the point of diverting traffic to alternate routes.


        So one (though not the only) consideration before a road diet is implemented should be what is the average daily traffic on Figueroa?

        • As the LADOT has the project planned now, the additional delay due to the road diet is 41 seconds during peak hour.

          41 seconds during peak hour.

          41 seconds during peak hour.

          We are not talking about any real impact to average travel times on Figueroa. This is Cedillo afraid of a backlash from the miniscule number of people who actually vote in the district seeing their idea of “normal” messed with.

          He does not give two shits about whether traffic will be impacted or not, or whether biking and walking are big part of stopping the obesity and diabetes epidemic in our community. It does not faze him that car crashes will be reduced. The facts don’t matter, we don’t matter. The only thing he cares about is votes in 2017 and he’s not going to let facts stand in his way.

          The people cheering his decision had better watch their asses in the next 3 years. It’s Gil’s way or the highway.

          • You say 41 seconds like thats no big deal. That 41 seconds becomes 5.5 hours per year; just for this one road diet. Now when you combine that with the 4 other road diets I have to pass on my way to work, thats almost an ENTIRE work week for me. All so YOU can ride a bike? Dude thats crazy.

            If our politicians were giving us a viable and reliable replacement for using cars (like light rail) I, as I’m sure many would be, behind plans like this but a bike lane is only satisfying a small population. Road diets are not a solution.

          • robit,

            This road diet will give people an alternative to using cars!

            And that 41 seconds of added delay will occur at York Blvd. – with the rest of the street unfazed by the bike lanes because traffic volumes are so low.

            I repeat, traffic volume on Figueroa at rush hour is low. At the busiest intersections, at York in the North and Avenue 26 in the South, we get 13,000 cars going one way and 13,000 cars going the other. On the rest of Figueroa, the street only sees 6k cars in each direction or less.

            The street is designed for 30,000 cars per day – 15,000 each direction.

            Traffic volume surveys over the last 10 years have shown that this street is over-committed to car travel AND YET due to the urban block size, the number of curb ramps, businesses, pedestrians, bus traffic, the Gold Line tracks at Avenue 64, and the backup at Avenue 26 at 110 freeway entrance – average car times during peak hours are between 8 and 13 mph which is typical for surface streets in LA during peak hours.

            Off peak travel speeds average 20 to 23 mph on Figueroa – again typical for surface streets in LA off peak.

            41 seconds at York doesn’t count as a significant enough barrier to me when I think about the immediate reduction in crashes this road diet would lead to.

            But we’re wasting each others time here. None of this matters to Cedillo. He knows about both sides of the issue and he isn’t basing this on facts. He isn’t bringing us together, he isn’t building consensus. He is doing the opposite, he is building discensus – he is driving us apart making us think that this is an either-or issue, he is stoking unfounded fears.

          • Robit: More people using bikes is a public good, if you stepped outside of your myopic lizard brain you’d see that. I speak as a motorist who values my time very much. Every bike rider represents one less person to get in my way on my drive or taking up a parking spot. Bike lanes are great because I don’t have to pass bike riders in the right lane any more. They reduce the conflict between motorist and bike riders. Fig isn’t even that congested and there are many alternate routes for drivers.

            Let’s ask the question another way: How many lives and injuries are worth that 41 seconds?

          • But John: If ridership in the bike lanes is low (distinct possibility), then you’ll have more or less the same number of cars trying to squeeze through one lane instead of two, and there goes your argument.

          • Skeeter: Nah, I think your argument based on nothing more than fear, uncertainty, and doubt is the loser here. Removing a lane would barely impact travel time on Fig at peak hours. At nonpeak hours it’s not a factor at all. If you disagree then please conduct your own study this and tell us the numbers and tell us your methodology so we can analyze it. Without that we’re just going on each other’s anecdotes. Your argument amounts to keeping a less-safe road design that doesn’t serve all road users based on FUD for peak hours. Again, what amount of safety and utility do you want to sacrifice for 41 seconds?

            I’ve driven in L.A. for over 20 years and have driven all the streets that have road diets before and after. IME what’s happened is exactly what LADOT has predicted in each study done before the road diets: very little impact on travel time. No carmageddon, no sky falling as all the naysayers like to keep parroting about.

            The bigger picture here is to make a usable network that facilitates travel by all road users, including bicyclists. If you build it they will come, the pattern has repeated time and again in cities around the world.

          • Why is it so crazy that I should be able to ride my bike safely on Figeroa, rohit? I have as much as a right to the road as you do. You have a myopic view based upon your driving, but the reality is roads are there for all.

            Also, the road diet makes things much safer for pedestrians as well. With all the silly cyclist-bashing nowadays, that tremendous loss of benefit doesn’t get much play. LA is an incredibly un-friendly pedestrian town — with the warm weather it makes a lot of sense to make it as friendly as possible.

            So yeah, complaining about :41 each way seems petty.

          • 41 seconds with several intersections left out of the calculation. I don’t think anyone has problems with bike lanes, but when people start wanting to close lanes on a state highway, yes, it is a highway, with 30,000 cars a day traveling this stretch of roadway, debate and planning cannot be confined to a couple community meetings where bicyclists from all over Los Angeles show up to try to drown out local concerns. That is not a democratic way of getting something done. By delaying this, it will provide adequate time for ALL people to have input in to how these get implemented. It isn’t IF bike lanes are coming to north fig. The question is will they be done correctly and safely and take in to account local community concerns, motorists, bicyclists, and pedestrians alike. It is very easy for everyone to just demonize people because they don’t get there way immediately. I love the slow democratic process and the debate. That is how our system is supposed to work. Thanks

        • The common two-way left-turn lane and the bike lanes themselves are being used for passing on congested Rowena Ave. since the road-diet has been instituted. Fortunately, since there are so few actual bicyclist using the lanes, the accidents that have occurred from two lanes of right turners have involved cars and a few motorcycles and scooters that use the lanes. When making a right turn from the auto traffic lane you risk being broadsided by a vehicle traveling illegally on your right. People are still jaywalking drunk from the Edendale Grill where a fatal accident occurred some time ago.

          • Poppycock from a hater of the road diet. I drive cars and walk down that street all the time, you make it sound like a war zone and really it’s no different.

          • I use the street multiple times daily during the rush hours. A women driving a white Honda 4 door Honda Civic passed me on the right in the bike lane on Wednesday, scraped a parked car and continued down to Glendale Bl where she turned right. I called in her plate number to the cops. I know 2 people turning right from the car lane who were hit by cars driving in the bike lane illegally. I thought the road diet was a good idea Rowena but abide by it. There is no active enforcement, just passive signage and frustrated drivers, sometimes head on in the common left turn lane.

          • Correction: I did not think the road diet on Rowena was a good idea.

          • Blah blah blah something bad happened to me on the freeway, let’s nuke the 10. We should base all of our planning decisions on who can tell the worst stories. Let’s wait until the numbers come in and then we can have something to talk about.

          • People drive like maniacs now on Rowena. The road diet wouldn’t be so bad if there were a better way to get to Riverside from Hyperion.

          • Silver Lake Resident

            I commute via Rowena five days a week during the morning rush hour. I usually bike due to the excellent bike infrastructure, but occasionally take my car depending on my schedule.

            There is no traffic delay. None whatsoever. Traffic speeds are also very calm. BIG WIN for Silver Lake residents and the parents/kids accessing the pre-schools and elementary school on that block. Now if there were a safer way to get down to Atwater Village without hugging the right lane on the Hyperion bridge only to be dumped into the middle of a four lane road at highway speeds (Glendale merge at the entrance to Atwater) or alternately taking Glendale Blvd. from Rowena down the hill which requires taking the ENTIRE right lane since there is not room for a bike+car in the right lane until you cross Riverside. I would much prefer to not have to slow any motorists down descending that hill, but there is simply no room to let anyone by.

    • “Figueroa just can’t afford the lanes. Colorado Blvd, yes, Figueroa, no.”

      What are you basing this on? Do you have an exhaustive study we can look at or is it just FUD?

    • There is no right or wrong answer. It’s a value judgement and should be based on the values of the community he is representing. He stated that he made his decision not to reconfigure Figueroa based on the safety of all road users. Was he listening to the community? Some argued for the status quo because there would be too much traffic. Some argued that the safety benefits from slower car speeds and bike lanes are worth the potential delay to drivers? Who convinced Cedillo that doing nothing was in the best interest if the safety of all road users?

  4. He’s putting the bike lanes on hold while focusing on other enhancements for pedestrians and cyclists. That sounds fair to me, since the community can’t seem to agree on the subject of bike lanes. Just read any comment section related to this topic and you’ll see…

    • I wouldn’t be so inclined to use the word “focusing”….

    • No, he is not “focusing on other enhancements” because the Great Streets Initiative is $800,000 split 15 ways which means $53,000 to do a planning exercise in CD1 – that isn’t enough money to even install one third of the crap he’s listed in his email.

      The bike lanes would have gone in if Cedillo hadn’t stopped them. That is what is happening.

      Cedillo is a liar and you’re a fool if you read that email and believe he cares one whit about making this street safer for bicyclists, pedestrians, and motorists.

      • Actually, the bike lanes were stopped because an increasing number of residents have voiced their strong opposition to the project. That’s pretty straight forward…

        • Numbers? Based on what I saw at meetings and at neighborhood councils the locals the majority of locals support it. Either way you can’t prove crap.

    • The outreach was already done, the due diligence was already done.

    • We should base things on a cesspool of anonymous Internet comments?

    • How do we know the community couldn’t agree on bike lanes? The public comment was restricted.

  5. This guy is still living in the early- to mid-Twentieth Century, with no concern for health, safety, or the existential threat of climate change. Watch out, Mr. Cedillo. If a bicyclist gets seriously injured or killed on Figueroa while you dither, your political career may be over.

    • The same could be said by those opposed to the bike lane and the bike lane was given the go ahead. “Watch out, Mr. Cedillo. If a bicyclist gets seriously injured or killed on Figueroa while you dither, your political career may be over.”

  6. Just to be clear about terminology, “traffic” is the number of people using a road while “congestion” is the amount of time they spend waiting. Removing a vehicle lane will not increase vehicle traffic – if anything it will decrease it. It’s possible that it will increase vehicle congestion.

    It’s likely to increase overall traffic, as people who stop driving the street are matched by people who start walking or biking once it’s a bit more pleasant.

  7. Pure slime. Cedillo says he will support them one minute then goes to great lengths to undo all the work his predecessor and LADOT does on this project, wasting all the time and money already spent. On top of that he uses his office to make calls in order to provide political cover for this. Shameful.

  8. Chalk up a victory for the silent majority! Bike lane advocates go to meeting after meeting pretending to speak for the community. They are a small yet outspoken portion of the population who overestimate the safety benefits and downplays the traffic impacts caused by bike lanes and road diets. Eventually, I think they will win out, but its nice to see their plans postponed and their vitriolic reactions to sane public policy that is most beneficial to the majority of Angelenos.

    • “silent majority”

      I’d be careful with bringing up things Nixon said.

    • We will find out if the silent majority exists in 2015, when CA cap-and -trade law is implemented at the gas pump. No more free polluting for drivers. More of their money invested in greenhouse reducing infrastructure, including bike lanes.

  9. Disappointing, no leadership, no solutions for improving conditions for Angelenos to get around safely.

  10. Yay! No bike lanes! Require cyclists to be licensed, carry insurance etc. and then we can talk. Most entitled group I have ever seen.

    • Yes, they are so horrible for wanting to not get killed by “cars only!” types like you.

      • Where did I say “cars only”?

        Require cyclists to be licensed, carry insurance etc. and then we can talk.

        • You’re using arguments used typically by “cars-only” idiots and abusing the word “entitled.” If anyone is entitled it’s these selfish cars-only jerks who resent every other kind of road user. They are a menace not just to pedestrians and bicyclists but to other motorists.

          The vast majority of bike riders are car drivers in L.A. so they already have insurance and licenses to operated much bigger and more dangerous vehicles. You’re asking for more bureaucracy for very little benefit.

          • No, I’m simply asking that cyclists share in the responsibility for their own safety and that of others. From what I can see the bike community doesn’t like being called out on that.

    • Is it too much to ask that they be required to abide by the same laws as motorists?

      If you ignore stop signs, ride on the wrong side of the road, and refuse to wear a helmet, then sorry, I have very little sympathy.

      • Ah that red herring again. From my car window I don’t see motorists being angels either. Why is it that bicyclists have to be perfect to get the most basic consideration on the road?

      • We are required to do those things… stop trying to change the topic.

    • Right On Eastsidearts. The cyclist lobby is an agenda without a demand. I was once again exasperated about the literally empty bike lanes I drove by this morning on Riverside and Rowena. Zero. Zilch, Nada. On a beautiful L.A. day(?!). Btw, helmets, signaling, insurance, and remaining as far right and as close to the curb as possible as the law also prescribes might garner some sympathy. Otherwise, the last think I want to see on our streets are more overgrown kids clogging and weaving through rush-hour traffic on their bikes, e.g. Glendale Blvd., Rampart, etc.

      • Please refer to this section of the CVC regarding bicycle use in the streets:

        Please refer to this section of the CVC regarding safety measures required on all bicycles:

        Please stop pulling red herring arguments out of your rear end.

        I see motorists with illegally tinted windows doing all sorts of stupid and dangerous things, I see people getting killed in my community, property destroyed, lives wrecked, by car drivers breaking the law. Does that mean all car drivers lose the privilege to use the public streets? No.

        If you see a bike rider break the law, that doesn’t mean it is okay to deny the rights of all bike riders. The same goes for pedestrians.

        Please, get educated, get a real counter argument, and please recognize that none of what you said swayed Cedillo – only the fact that you said it. Your gut reaction is what scared him into backing out of his campaign promise, nothing factual or real as regards safety, human health, and happiness. Only his electoral future in 2017. You think he’s going to listen to you when you don’t agree with him on something?! Good luck – talk to those who wanted to keep Superior as it was or those who want to save the Riverside Drive Bridge, or those who want Dodger Stadium gates re-closed on some of the side streets.

        Good luck.


  11. As a person with an actual job to go to, I applaud Councilman Cedillo for having the common sense to realize what a disaster bike lanes on Figueroa would be.

    • This may come as a shock to you, brace your self (I hope you’re sitting down.) Cyclists have to go to actual jobs too.

    • I have a job and I would like to commute to that job on my bike without having to fear for my life because there are no bike lanes. Why can’t we share the road?

    • Bill, please stop making us people who drive cars and have jobs look like selfish chumps.

      Those who like to abuse the words “smug” and “entitled” take note: Bill’s comment is some classic smug entitled tripe: “I’m more deserving then these frivolous dirty hippies! How could they possibly be going somewhere on a bike! The horror! It’s not normal! The miniscule seconds I might save during peak hours trumps your safe passage!”

  12. Many a poster on here forget the majority of people traveling in Fig. early mornings are laborers, construction workers, contractors, moms and dads, people who might be “all in for bikes” but cannot due to the fact they are hauling materials and or kids to destinations. Please step out of your idyllic netherworld fantasy where everyone can do everything on a bike and step into reality where LA was poorly designed and now we have to deal with it. You want to raise Cain about no bike lanes? Why don’t you storm city hall and ask why we are the worst metro transit city? Simple answer, oil money . Even the current “rapid transit” is a joke , from DTNLA to Culver the trains stop at traffic lights. What a joke.

    • Here is a photograph of about 60 cars waiting to enter the 110 freeway in the morning on Figueroa. A lot of the working poor have their days messed up by all those single occupant cars blocking the buses. The real poor, the working poor, those on public benefits and others – can’t afford to drive everywhere. You aren’t making an argument for the working man and woman. You’re making an argument that rationalizes your lifestyle choice.


  13. I can’t say I’m unhappy over this. Cyclists regularly blow through stop signs and then spit on people if they object, honk, or nearly collide with them.

    Ideally, this should be a wake-up call to cyclist, but I seriously doubt it will. I think they will just become even more obnoxious.

    OK I’m ready for the hate mail.

  14. I was all for the bike lane on Rowena and welcome the idea of sharing the road with cyclists. However, it really is a dangerous free-for-all. Almost every time I am at the light a car comes racing up on my right. After implementation, the city should have had a cop car sitting on Lakewood handing out tickets.

  15. Wow, Cedillo is terrible. First he sided with the Dodgers over the Scott Ave. gate, and now this. I wish I lived in his district so that I could vote him out.

  16. No surprise here. Whatever the merits of their agenda, the political style of the cyclists could not be less compatible with Cedillo’s. The cyclists come off as one-issue absolutists – self-righteous, entitled and bratty. Cedillo on the other hand is as sartorial as he is non-ideological – a smooth dealmaker who is attracted to glamour, votes and money. The cyclists have nothing to offer the CM. I suggest that the bike boys develop a style and messaging more compatible with LA politics and politicians while they wait for the next CM.

    • Here are the bike boyz doing their thing:

      One thing I’ve noticed from the anti-road diet crowd: they project their own entitlement, brattiness, and self-righteousness onto those whom they disagree with. You folks also have issues with addressing the topic at hand: whether or not bike lanes will impact car travel times, make the road safer or more dangerous, help fight the epidemics of obesity and diabetes, etc. On those issues, the anti-road diet crowd has jack squat to say – but please, educate us all about how “entitled” we are for wanting a healthier, happier, safer neighborhood.

      • Wrong, sonny boy. I’m not opposed to your policy aims by any means. Just offering an observation about the overheated rhetoric and shrill style that has failed your intentions. Maybe you can find a grown-up spokesperson to help out the next time around.

        • Oh yes, please, preach it. You’ve been so successful in your efforts to … sorry, what have you ever done to make the community a better place?

          I’ll be over here in “failure land” waiting patiently.

        • Agreed, El Nimby. Once the bike lobby lets go of their deeply-ingrained belief that everybody should bike everywhere all the time and that drivers are evil, we might start to get somewhere.

          • Skeeter – Maybe by next election cycle the boys will come to realize that their favorite hobbies just might not save all the world’s problems.

          • I am so glad we have the two of you to condescend the group of local residents organized to have safer streets.

            You guys are SO VERY experienced in change making. Tell me, what kind of attitude would you have to get the North Figueroa bike lanes included in the 2010 bike plan back in 2009? I am sure your ever so polite manners would have come in handy. And where were you when the two local bike collectives in CD1 got started? Your manners probably kept you away from the drunks, homeless dudes, and local kids.

            And where were either of you two hot air bags during anything, really, anything of import in this community?

            Go mind your manners with Martha Stewart. I learned the hard way that being nice in LA politics gets you nowhere. It wasn’t until we started raising hell that this issue even got to the forefront of public discourse.

            So please, professors, hold forth. Educate us all with your deep well of knowledge on urban transportation politics and functional political strategies for change in LA.


          • He’s a very emotional young man who likes to think he matters. Cute.

    • This is rudely delivered (“entitled, bratty”, “bike boys”), but there is a kernel of truth here. Cedillo is clearly an old-school politico, and like a lot of older residents of LA (but not all!), cannot really imagine an alternative to auto commuting. Sure, buses for poor people, but bikes are toys for kids. We’ve all met such people who truly can’t imagine any other way. He looks at this and sees no real estate developer money, no big public works project to point to, and it just looks like a risk of alienating voters.

      I do think the comment is seriously wrong in one respect. Bike transit advocates (LACBC, etc.) have been very effective in working the bureaucratic process to get bike lanes on the agenda. It just didn’t work with this council member.

      Cedillo, I’d suggest, should get out more. Traveling around similarly dense areas in other cities, one sees a lot of bike lanes these days. I visited Manhattan (obviously much more dense) recently and was surprised at the number of bike lanes.


  18. Greater Cypress Park neighborhood council just voted for “no road diet”. They voted for bike lanes but for no removal of car lanes “road diet”. Yes, it is posssible to have it both ways. Bike lanes, YES. Removal of car lanes, NO!
    No road diet.

    The Cypress Park community spoke out loud and clear at 2 meetings. They did not want road diets. The traffic is horrible at North Figueroa. And, it would not be an extra 44 seconds. DOT admitted in the neighborhood council meeting that only one study was done. And, that one study was only done for one day. ONE DAY???? One time and only ond day?? Outragous!! Greater Cypress Park neighborhood council did the right thing. They voted for bicyclist and for motorists too!!

    And, if people want to be fat that is their right. Leave them alone. People need to take responsibility for their own lives.

  19. If someone wants to try to make the community more healthy they would try to shut down Food4Less. Most of the food sold there is unhealthy with more junk food than any other store around. And, go ahead and shut down McDonald’s, Burger King, Taco Bell and every other fast food. And, go ahead and take away all the sodas and anything else that has sugar or corn syrup. And, go ahead and take away hamburgers and french fries.

    In other words, the dictators are at work. The dictators want to take away choice and personal responsibility. The dictators want to force you to eat what they want you to eat.

    Education is the key to healthy living and healthy eating. Stop taking away people’s freedom of choice. This is still America.

  20. Motorcyclist should have their own lane too! Let’s make it safer for them. Allow motorcyclist to use the bike lane or give them their own lane. They never safety too!! They are much less safe than bicyclist. Give motorcyclists their own lane!! Share the road.

  21. Silver Lake Resident

    Why can’t we as neighbors stop the ad hominem attacks and just have evidence based decision making? We all care about this community. If the evidence shows that lives will be saved and a minimal impact will be felt by drivers, then the rest is anecdotes and unsubstantiated fear.

    According to the research: ( http://ladotbikeblog.wordpress.com/2013/08/06/york-blvd-road-diet-traffic-safety-analysis/) The York Ave road diet reduced collisions by 23% and injuries per mile by over 27%. Isn’t that worth 41 seconds? From ’02 to ’11 this stretch of Fig had 822 car related injuries and 9 fatalities. Including 141 pedestrians struck by cars. (https://docs.google.com/file/d/0B62WzEc7Bn7zdUszeGlSNkJJNVE/edit)

    I used to live in Pasadena and had to commute to multiple destinations via car. I occasionally used Figeuroa as an alternate route. 41 seconds of my hour long commute would not have affected my day. Especially in light of the above evidence.

    If you were a resident of the neighborhood adjoining S. Figeuroa and not just a pass-through commuter. Wouldn’t you want to have a safer, more walkable, more livable street? Imagine if you were raising kids there. Be a good neighbor. Support safety and health for everyone.

  22. I thinks its funny that most of the people who want the bike lanes in our city do not even live in the surrounding area.

  23. After reading the extensive amount of comments on the bike lane issue, its very consistent as to what you might imagine to be comments from both sides.

    When I first learned about the bike lane and closing south bound lane on Fig I thought why in the world would you close the south bound lane and not the north bound lane? It seems counter intuitive to me. The south bound land is the alternate route for the Arroyo Seco freeway for morning commuters heading for DT LA for work. When the 110 gets messed up , which happens more than we would like, Fig because the escape route and the Ave 26 on-ramp and Fig are very congested. It seemed more logical for the north bound land to be eliminated. I have often seen the south bound lane on Fig jammed up , but seldom(if ever) the north bound lane. Can anyone explain the logic of south bound lane vs north bound ?

    I don’t really have a dog in the fight here, but I don’t believe the DOT has made sufficient studies to determine what would be the best solutions for bike lanes and road diet.

    What is also interesting is Figueroa Street is classified as a State Highway, I believe a high capacity highway. A few years back public works narrowed the sidewalks from Ave 50 to Ave 60. Several of us objected to this idea and we were told by the council office and DOT that it was a requirement of the state highways and was out of their control. So now its ok to remove a lane of traffic?

  24. As much as I support Bike culture. I think its absolutely insane to combine bike lanes with traffic lanes without a HARD divider such as a curb or easement. I’ve seen too many bikers get hit in our roadways and I would NEVER allow my children to ride along a busy street. It takes one bad driver, one second to take you out. We should look at many other European areas where actual dividers have been used to truly protect its bikers. Personally, Id rather risk a ticket on the sidewalk that face another texting LA driver.

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 *