Speed limits changes coming to Eastside streets

25 mph sign in cypress park

25 mph speed limit on Avenue 28 in Cypress Park will be raised to 30 mpg

Speed limits are going up on more than 100 miles of city streets so the LAPD can write more speeding tickets, the Los Angeles Times reports.  Huh? It sounds counterintuitive, but then again so is the law that forced the move, or as one councilman said it’s “stupid.”

Apparently, cities must post speed limits that mirror the natural flow of traffic. If the speed limit is more than seven years old or too slow, officers can’t use the radar guns they rely upon to catch speeders.

So, the L.A. City Council last month voted to raise the limits on many streets. However, in some cases, speed limits were lowered based on recent traffic studies.

Expect the new speed limit signs to go up soon.

Here are some Eastside streets with the upcoming speed changes:

  • A section of Avenue 28 in Cypress Park goes up to 30 mph from 25 mph
  • One mile of Huntington Drive in El Sereno goes up to 40 mph from 35 mph
  • Bellevue Avenue in Silver Lake goes down to 25 mph from 30 mph
  • A stretch of Stadium Way through Elysian Park goes up to 40 mph from 35 mph
  • Alvarado Street south of the 101 Freeway slows to 30 mph from 35 mph

Rachel Uranga is a Los Angeles-based writer


  1. Increased tickets would mean increased stopping. How about they actually stop people? I’ve never seen a city with more busted up cars, more dealer plates and more speeding with high and f**ed up people before.

  2. I must point out, what the Times has been reporting is completely false — and they know it, I have multiple times presented them the statute to show them what they have been reporting is false, but they don’t care. You can read the statue here:


    The Vehicle Code statute absolutely says NOTHING about the speed being set at the “natural flow of traffic,” the Times just made that up, and the reality of news in this town is that all the other news providers read and regurgitate whatever the Times reports, they lack enough staff to research things themselves.

    The statute talks about the “safe” speed not the “natural flow of traffic.” And the safe speed is determined by scientific standards in an “engineering and traffic” study, not a mere check of “natural flow of traffic,” something not even mentioned in the statute. The statute says speed limits below the safe speed cannot be enforced. The standards for that include a host of factors, such as lighting, curves on the street, street width, any distractions on the street, the volume of traffic, the number of accidents on a street, etc. The courts must consider real scientific standards, not any old crap Los Angeles might want to call standards so the city can write more tickets and make more money, a point that was the origin of the state speed trap law.

    The Times has been intentionally reporting false information so as to provide for lowering speed limits from current postings — as per the advocacy of those who have been pushing all sorts of things to thwart cars, from road diets, to stop signs and traffic signals at every corner, and years of calling for lower speed limits — all in an effort to bludgeon people out of their cars. Even that effort about getting people out of cars has been promoted by nothing but lies. It isn’t because everyone wants to ride a bicycle, and they have asserted! It goes back to global warming. But they clearly are afraid to have an honest discussion that might show how wrongheaded they are about their approach. (We are already moving away from gasoline cars to non-polluting cars). Please, let us at least have an honest discussion. If those pushing it don’t even believe the truth is satisfactory, instead lie — what do they think they are doing, why should we listen to them?

    And the Times over and over has biased its news coverage to support that effort, rather than report truth.

    Whatever people think of the effort to thwart cars, can we at least have an honest discussion about it instead of the entire effort completely buried under lies, never the truth about anything, never even tell the real reason behind the demands. Are those in support of that so afraid that no one would go along with it if they knew the truth behind it, they should manipulate everyone instead? Please, just once, tell the truth — even about what this Vehicle Code section requires.

    • The methodology used for adjusting these speed limits is the 85th percentile of free flowing traffic.

      So, you’re wrong?

      • Like I said, the city does not get to decide the rules, and I add, it does not matter if it tells you only part of them. Actually:


        Yes, the flow of traffic on the road is one things considered, it is the starting point, merely the starting point. from there:

        “Traffic engineers and safety officials determine rational speed limits based on a formal review of traffic flow, roadway design, local development and crash information. Rational speed lim
        its make more sense to the vast majority”

        “A team of traffic engineers and public safety officials analyzed traffic flow and speed data from many locations along the roadway. They also reviewed crash data from multiple years, and considered the existing roadway design features. They combined this information to select a reasonable and prudent speed limit that is consistent with the speeds chosen by the vast majority of drivers. The starting point for determining the new speed limit is the 85th Percentile Speed. The traffic engineers may then adjust that speed limit to account for other safety factors. ”

        Note that word “safety” factors again. The review does not start AND end at flow of traffic. It would be insane to consider nothing but flow of traffic, and the public would be right to be irate if that is all it was. But that is NOT all it is.

        Garcetti is all in favor of this stuff. It is the city department under him that is posting on the Website only a piece of the info, they don’t want you to know the rest because they want to be able to reduce speeds to manufacture even more traffic jams by reducing safe speed limits.

        • Congratulations Mark for linking to a pdf from the Louisiana State Police’s website in an attempt to stick by your incorrect assumption about California law.

          Here’s an actual quote from California: “Speed limits are established at or near the 85th percentile speed.” Further: “The established speed limit can be reduced by 5 mph if the conditions and justification for using this lower speed limit are documented in the E&TS and approved by a registered Civil or Traffic Engineer.”

          At some point you might just want to admit that you’re not a licensed transportation engineer and don’t know what you’re talking about.

          • They are citing the federal standards for safety. And the California law repeatedly speaks to speed safety, not merely any old speed of the flow of traffic.

            If you want to be duped, then keep believing the standard is whatever speed the cars are going, nothing more considered. Only a fool will be fooled by that assertion.

        • The conspiracy to redesign streets is not about global warming, although global warming is one part of the concern. The focus is really about having streets that are accessible and safe to pedestrians, bicyclists, whatever mode of transportation. Today that is not the case, as cars dominate not just the highways built for them, but also most of our neighborhood streets and spaces. In many places, a car is required to get around because of how spread out the urban environment is. So the end-goal is really about quality of life, and more specifically, returning neighborhood streets to people. The injuries and fatalities we see every year is the most objective evidence we have to show the status quo has not been working.

          • Yes, Matti, that is the case today. It is safe today, as determined by real standards, not empty assertions. I walk around the streets all the time, no issue — I don’t j-walk, I don’t walk against the light, I pay attention. The streets are fully accessible, we have sidewalks on both sides, people should not be waling down the middle of the street. Throwing around loaded language does not create a reality.

            Yes, it is about getting rid of the cars — that has been shouted all the time in the arguments.

          • “Throwing around loaded language does not create a reality.”

            -Mark, ignoring Mark’s words

  3. Great news!

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 *