Tuesday, October 25, 2016

Supporters & opponents collide over Silver Lake’s Rowena Road Diet; Boyle Heights women play loteria to learn about sex

Elysian Valley | The Eastsider

Elysian Valley | The Eastsider

MOrning Report

  • City transportation officials say that the Rowena “Road Diet” has paid off by reducing traffic collisions but many nearby Silver Lake residents say it has only increased problems and congestion on side streets. L.A. Times
  • Boyle Heights women used a  loteria-style game to discuss and learn about sex. Boyle Heights Beat
  • A new Lincoln Heights charter school high school has replaced traditional classroom chairs for sofas to create a more college-like atmosphere. EGP News

eastside events

Submit An Event

Submit An Event

Eastsider Advertising


  1. The Rowena road diet is a total disaster. Saying that there is a “reduction in collisions” is a pointless statistic that means nothing. Rowena is now so choked with gridlock traffic that a lot of drivers have given up on it and drive on other streets like Waverly Dr. I bet that if a study was done of the whole area, one would find that collisions have actually gone up.

    • So get off your Cell phones, slow down, and Pay attention!
      Im sure there is more traffic because i drive that way all The time , but i have not seen a plethora of accidents.
      The truth is every where in L.A. Is more congested, and The “Eastside” is becoming more and more like The Westside traffic wise!
      The same people complaining are praising changes in The neighborhood ,sky rocketing property values ,
      But dont want everything else that comes with it , like traffic and mega construction developments.
      Stop whining.

    • Rowena is never gridlocked when I drive on it!

    • Bill, actually the measurement of rescued accidents is 100% fake. Los Angles has never taken reports of accidents that do not involve an injury. So, the city has zero idea of how many accidents there have been there, the only now how many involved injuries. They have nothing to compare to!

      Since the number of accidents all across the nation is down significantly in recent years, reduced accidents in recent years on Rowena are more likely due to the substantially better safety standards built into newer cars, such as better bumpers, air bags, better ABS brakes – all of which turn an injury accident into a non-injury accident or no accident at all. That means there might even be MORE accidents on Rowena than in the past, but the safer cars have left them with fewer injuries, and so the city has not taken any reports of those accidents.

      This is how you justify something by taking it completely out of context in order to pull the wool over people’s eyes. If you don’t know that accidents are down significantly pretty much everywhere in the country, you can’t know that it is not due to the road diet on Rowena. If you don’t know that the city doesn’t even take accident reports without an injury, you can’t know that they have no idea how many accidents there are or were on Rowena. Yet there they go making outlandish claims with fake reports.

      There is an old saying: Liars figure and figures lie. That is all that claim about accidents is. It is not possible for it to be anything else since they don’t have reports of non-injury accidents in the past nor are they taking them now.

      • Your use of “accident” is a lie in itself.

      • Are injury rates in collisions involving cars/peds and cars/bicyclists down? Because that’s the metric that’s important to proponents of the road diet. No safety improvements made to a car will affect those rates.

      • Lastly! You’re completely wrong about collision data. SWITRS indeed records collision in which no one is injured. Every reported collision in California is in SWITRS. What makes you think they don’t report non-injury collisions? Have you… looked at the data?

        • SWIRTRS only has information about accidents that the local agencies have reported to it. It absolutely does not claim to have every accident that has happened. LAPD does not go to or collect information about non-injury accidents — so it doesn’t even know about them in order to report them. It can’t report something it doesn’t know about. As per:

          “The Statewide Integrated Traffic Records System (SWITRS) is collected and maintained by the California Highway Patrol (CHP). SWITRS contains all collisions that were reported to CHP from local and governmental agencies.”

          Further, it isn’t even reports simply that there was an accident, It is also information from the scene itself. LA does not go to or collect information from the scene of non-injury accidents.:

          “The Statewide Integrated Traffic Records System (SWITRS) is a database that serves as a means to collect and process data gathered from a collision scene.”

          Next time you are in a non-injury accident in LA, call 911 or other police line and see if you can get anyone to come to the scene. They will not.

          • Of course there are unreported collisions. That does not mean the statistics are fake as you claim. If you bothered to look at the data, you would see that many collisions have no injury or no serious injury, which pretty much proves you are lying.

          • “SWIRTRS only has information about accidents that the local agencies have reported to it” Great point. And that’s why I said, “Every reported collision in California is in SWITRS.” Glad we’re on the same page.

            But I have to repeat my question, “have you looked at the data?” I have! And I just ran a report of the 2012 SWITRS collision data for Los Angeles County. Of the 49,625 reported collisions, 24,479 involved no injuries. So 49.3% of the collisions reported in LA County in 2012 were non-injury collisons. And these reports contain plenty of information about the scene.

            I agree with you that many non-injury collisions are likely not reported (or the authorities simply don’t show up). However, this data pokes a huge hole in your argument. Furthermore, this data is likely sufficient to establish a baseline in the Rowena area, from which we could see if collisions are increasing or decreasing.

      • Your post is a lie. Anyone can access this data you claim is fake and doesn’t exist. Nice try, but like all others opposed to this you will rely on misinformation and scare tactics all because your convenience as a motorist was ever so slightly affected.

  2. bathing at baxter

    I’ve seen 3 collisions on Rowena. All happened when drivers turning right ciollided with cars driving in the bike lane trying to get ahead of traffic by passing on the right. I also saw an almost head on in the left turn lane. Drivers using it to pass ended up playing chicken. There’s often gridlock with traffic backed up around Hyperion to TJs. I’m not there at night much. How is it after dark?

    • I drive along it every Friday evening/night. At 7:30pm running north, it is somewhat busy but always moving. During that time, it seems the diet is working, as drivers are not speeding but it’s not clogged. At 10pm running south, there’s no cloggage. I think the lighting still sucks on it, though, and there are some significant gaps between crosswalks. It can be really difficult to see people crossing the street from Edendale (and valet running across the street).

  3. How do the number of accidents and change in the numbers on the road diet part of Rowena compare to those on the part from Glendale Blvd to Fletcher with no road diet? Why do I suspect they are pretty much the same, which would suggest no impact on accidents by the road diet. Funny that such a comparison is left out completely. Of course, the closure of lanes on the non-road diet side from the reservoir pipe construction will interfere with that comparison.

  4. Why are we still talking about this?

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 *