Bike Lanes Planned for Fletcher Drive, Meeting Tonight

Bike lanes and landscape median improvements planned for Fletcher Drive and Avenue 35. Source: GPIA
Bike lanes (mislabeled as bike path) and landscape median improvements planned for Fletcher Drive. Source: GPIA

At tonight’s meeting of the Glassell Park Improvement Association, Los Angeles City Councilmember Mitch O’Farrell will be presenting the Department of Transportation’s (LADOT) planned Fletcher Drive Streetscape Project. Project plans are posted at the GPIA website. The project includes a road diet with bike lanes, plus new landscaped median islands. The bike lanes extend 0.8 miles from Fletcher and San Fernando Road to Avenue 36 and Eagle Rock Boulevard. Fletcher turns into Avenue 36 just north of the 2 Freeway.

This safety project would make Fletcher Drive safer for students at the adjacent Irving Middle School and Fletcher Drive Elementary School. Fletcher also serves as an important connection from Northeast L.A. to the L.A. River, Silver Lake, and Hollywood, though those connections will need to see the road diet extended below San Fernando Road. Hopefully some day.

Tonight’s meeting place at 7 p.m. at the Glassell Park Senior Center at 3750 Verdugo Road, next to the Glassell Park Rec Center and Pool. 

Southwest end of the Fletcher Drive bike lanes. Image: GPIA
Southwest end of the Fletcher Drive bike lanes at San Fernando Road. Image: GPIA
The Fletcher bike lanes will continue on Avenue 35. Source: GPIA
The Fletcher bike lanes continue on Avenue 36 to Eagle Rock Blvd. Source: GPIA

Nearby Verdugo Road is also in the early planning stages of another NELA street safety road diet project. The project, according to this GPIA Facebook event page, is expected to include “bike lanes, left-turn pocket lanes, high-visibility crosswalks, and reduced lanes of auto traffic” on Verdugo Road from Eagle Rock Boulevard to Plumas Street, near the city border with Glendale.

GPIA and Councilmember Jose Huizar are hosting a workshop for public input on the Verdugo Road safety project. The forum takes place next week: Thursday May 19 at 7 p.m. at the Glassell Park Community Center at 3750 Verdugo Road, at the Glassell Park Rec Center and Pool.

Find out more about the Verdugo Road project at the Neighbors for a Safer Verdugo website.

  • Mark

    Anyone who drives on Fletcher Drive knows this plan to eliminate traffic lanes is nothing but an effort to intentionally make the street bumper-to-bumper traffic. That street is already very heavily traveled, overloaded even in off-peak hours. To take a traffic lane out, rather than add one, will make it a pure horror — which of course is the intent.

    And to do this as they are planning to be closing off lanes on the Hyperion Bridge for construction there, so traffic having to re-route to Fletcher, is downright criminal, unbelievably ill conceived! In fact, one of the arguments of the bike advocates for demanding lanes on the bridge be permanently taken out of use by cars involved that they could use Fletcher instead!

    This all revolves around overdevelopment, not safety or that people want to ride bikes and get rid of their cars, as we keep being told. This is designed to circumvent the CEQA requirement to consider the impact of overdevelopment on the surrounding area, which means including traffic. They are basically seeking to redefine that, but pretending that people will be happy to have no car, so overdevelopment is perfectly fine and does not spark CEQA considerations.

    Not surprising that O’Farrell is pushing this, as nearly 100% of his unbelievably huge intake of campaign funds comes from developers and construction unions and their related people such as architects and development lawyers.

    If everyone wanted the bike lanes, as we keep being told, there were actually be a lot of people using them. They are all over now and have been in for 15+ years. Anyone can see nearly no one uses them — because they don’t want to bike everywhere. Yet they keep trying to bludgeon people by manufacturing intentional road horror into the idea they want to ride a bike.

    There is nothing wrong with driving a car, especially now that polluting ones
    are being phased out with the advent of the fuel cell hydrogen cars
    that spew only steam and water, and with electric cars. The idea that going
    forward cars are an environmental danger is obsolete and anachronistic.

  • JudahLA

    I disagree. While it negatively affects my commute since I drive through here 5 days a week this is the least busy section in that area. Which means cars drive fast. And this area already has fairly dense housing which means there are quite a few pedestrians. Literally the other day I was driving and noticed a bicycle having to take that blind curve and was really concerned.

    Traffic is NEVER going to get better in LA unless the population drops off significantly. Making roads and adding lanes won’t make it better, or at least not much. What we do have to do is prepare for other modes of transportation. Maybe you won’t use it but the option needs to exist. I’ve ridden my bike and it’s terrifying because while there are sections of bike lanes, you have to use some stretches where there aren’t any. This makes the existing bike lanes in LA still hard to use. I have a strong suspicion you don’t know the people that actually live in those apartments. You know, people that can’t afford your exciting fuel cell hydrogen cars.

    You’re right. There’s nothing wrong with driving a car. Congrats, you can keep driving and nobody thinks your bad for it. You’re not a martyr. You may not realize it but that’s what you sound like.

  • chairs missing

    “Road Horror”, LOL.

    Stop the hyperbole… you’re embarrassing yourself.

    Let’s see the collision stats, average speeds, traffic counts, projected traffic flow post road diet, etc. and let the community discuss and decide.

  • LAguttersnipe

    Shit! Mark figured out our plan! We will continue to bludgeon people by manufacturing intentional road horror — which of course is the intent.

  • Joe Commuter

    Ok, first of all, did you read the article or look at the plans?

    The road diet is only east of San Fernando Road, and doesn’t even quite reach SF Road heading westbound. There is no traffic to speak of east of San Fernando Road. There’s hardly any traffic even as parents are picking up or dropping off kids at school. if heading west, traffic easily clears once you pass Estara.

    The only traffic I even see on any kind of regular basis is between the river and Glendale Blvd. I don’t think we’ll ever see a road diet there, though though it would make sense since it could improve access to the LA River bike path.

    Also, I don’t know how closely you have followed the conversation on Hyperion but no lanes are being lost there. And again, even though construction might temporarily divert (doubt it, as Hyperion and Fletcher are so far apart) traffic, it would only be on the part of Fletcher which is NOT receiving a road diet.

    “overdevelopment” Oh boy, yeah we’re so overdeveloped that nobody can afford housing and any time a home goes on the market it gets snatched up in a minute well over asking price.

    I agree the CEQA definition is changing. We are no longer stating that increased car traffic is a way to measure impact on the environment. Which should be fine because as you state in your own comment, cars are cleaner now so congestion isn’t indicative of any impact on the environment.

    Bike lanes have hardly been proliferating for the past 15 years. The city installed a lot a few years ago after Mayor V. broke his elbow but since then things have died down. There is no bike network. But more people are biking. Census data shows biking has been among the faster growing modes of commuting citywide. So, people are voting with their feet and slowly changing their travel patterns.

    Nope, nothing wrong with driving. And there is nothing wrong with biking. Let’s make them both safe options so that people can really have a choice in how they travel. Cars might not be bad for the environment from an emissions standpoint, but they are still bad for the environment from a spatial standpoint. Cars take up a lot of space. It would be better for the environment (which I’m sure you care oh so much about) if we had a city where we could walk from destination to destination rather than drive from parking lot to parking lot.

  • MP

    This is what I call “ornamental bike lanes” like vintage street lights or benches. They only run for two blocks, they don’t go anywhere, they don’t connect anything. They will make it less safe for kids because as soon as they end the drivers will believe that they own the whole road.
    You either connect Eagle Rock blvd to Glendale blvd and Rowena or don’t do it at all. These two blocks of bike lanes are an insult to cyclists.

  • Slexie

    Who needs any of that when there is actual experience. Drove down Virgil twice today. Bumper to bumper in the middle of the day and morning rush hour. It’s been that way since the dumb road diet. Plenty of time to sit there crawling along to notice NO BIKERS using the bike lane. And not just once have I done that. Many many times it’s gridlocked and the bike lane is empty. I’ve also biked it, never seeing other bikers during that time either. So it’s really lame and the bike lane ends just before you go over the hill to Beverly and Silver Lake Blvd. Completely crowded and dangerous intersection. Glad to see the bike lane ends before that. Safety first!

    Or the stupid bike lane on Rowena. It ends just before the curve going east. There’s no way to get over to make a left turn because the cars won’t see you on the curve. That stupid bike lane was put in because a girl was crossing the street near a bar there at 9pm. She was struck by a car and killed. So a year after the road diet was installed, accidents are down. Why? Because it’s too crowded and less cars are going that way. More cars are zipping through the side streets and making life miserable for the residents there. A year after the road diet? A guy was crossing the street near where that girl was killed and he too was hit by a car. Thankfully, he was not killed. But why was he hit?

    He was hit because there isn’t enough light. There isn’t enough light on that stretch of road. But a road diet was supposed to make it safer, but the cars aren’t the problem. Also, why were he and the girl who was killed the year before crossing the street there at night?

    Because their cars were parked across the street from the bar/restaurant. Because the restaurant didn’t have enough…parking.

    And the community was not asked or given the opportunity to decide. There has been a petition to repeal the road diet, but the city doesn’t care.

    Or what about the new bike lanes in the Valley? One bike lane on Vineland goes right by a freeway on ramp. Because we have to put bike lanes on streets that run right along the freeway. Because bikes can’t go on the freeway, but they can go by the on ramp so the cars can have someone to honk at while they accelerate up the ramp. Not all the new bike lanes in the Valley zip right by a freeway on ramp. The bike lane by the Orange Line is not only poorly lit, but the lane has car parking on the right. On the right, so you’re in the perfect position to demonstrate the door zone. Really great planning by the powers that be.

    So stats and reports won’t mean anything if the bike lanes aren’t safe. But there won’t be any accidents in those lanes, because no one uses them. See how that works?

  • John Huan Vu

    Funny how the road-diet-haters always experience CARMAGEDDON and I never see any of this? Maybe some confirmation bias? Well how about some data to back up your claims?

  • John Huan Vu

    ” Plenty of time to sit there crawling along to notice NO BIKERS using the bike lane.”

    Ever consider that people don’t ride as much because people LIKE YOU make it politically impossible to actually get some decent connected bike infrastructure? It’s a bit lame and circular to use that argument when you contribute to making the cycling experience as miserable as possible.

  • chairs missing

    I certainly agree that more of our bike lanes should be connected to one another, forming a proper network.

    I would guess that’s a big reason why you don’t see a lot of cyclists on Rowena or Virgil (but perhaps do moreso on Sunset.) And I’m with you on building better bike infrastructure (Dutch style cycle tracks would be nice!)

    But in the meantime, we have to start somewhere. Incremental improvements are better than doing nothing at all.

    And it’s not just about cyclists… but rather the safety of EVERYONE using the street. This is why the data is so important.

  • Slexie

    You know what’s lame? You. The heck am I making the biking experience miserable? Please point to all the campaigns I’ve waged against bikers and bike lanes. I’m sure you have pictures of me with a sign or a car blocking the bike lane. Or maybe I’m undercover riding my bike in the bike lane and getting almost killed because the bike lane is in the door zone. So you tell me Sparky, tell me how I affect your biking experience.

  • Slexie

    To back up what claims? Have you ever been on Virgil during rush hour? Then I guess you wouldn’t know what I’m talking about. And you wouldn’t be able to say anything about the road diet I’m referring to because you don’t know, right? Because you think every road diet is fine, despite if you’ve experienced it or not, right?

    You never see any of what? Gridlock on Virgil? Do you know where the bike lane ends on Virgil going south? So you really have no dispute with my claims, you just don’t believe anything I say. Now if you had been on Virgil during rush hour, you would know what it’s like. But we both know you haven’t been, so I’ll get right on gathering the data from my personal experiences. Because it’s so important to make you believe me, because I care so much about your opinion of me. I. Care. So. Much.

  • John Huan Vu

    Yes, I’ve been on all these streets during rush hour numerous times on different modes of transit, yes travel time is barely affected. NUMBERS or GTFO.

  • John Huan Vu

  • Slexie

    On what streets? You didn’t even name any. Now I know you’re lying. You just clowned yourself.

  • John Huan Vu

    Rowena, Virgil, 7th Street. But talk about missing the point, which is that anyone can say how horrible or not horrible traffic is but without empirical data individual impressions can only go so far. How can you be so certain of the causality, and even if you were able to prove that travel times were changed during peak hours we would have to weigh that against safety gains and the issue of access.

  • Slexie

    I still don’t believe you. You’re just making generalizations. People only want to look at data and then make some grand statement that a neighborhood needs this or that, and they don’t live there and they don’t use that area as part of their daily commute. That’s why I don’t believe you. Because you would have already tried to tell me how wrong I am about my experience, based on your experience, instead of demanding data. And I’ve never been on the bike lane on 7th, I would never speak on that because I don’t know.

    Rowena started that dumb road diet because a girl was killed crossing the street there. She was leaving a bar/restaurant at night and whoever hit her didn’t see her and she was killed. So here comes the road diet. A year after the road diet was implemented, another pedestrian was hit crossing the street at the same place. This man was not killed thank God, but he was injured. Why? How did that happen? I thought the road diet was supposed to make that street safer, right? Well it didn’t. But why?

    Because the problem wasn’t cars. The problem is light. That area is poorly lit, that’s why before and after the road diet people were hurt or killed. So whatever stats I get aren’t going to say what is really happening. Oh look, less accidents since the road diet! Duh, because there are less cars because people don’t want to sit in traffic. So they use side streets instead. Here’s a study from a local, but I’m sure it doesn’t matter to you. This guy actually lives in the area. Of course it’s not the big scientific study you’re looking for.

    And here’s an article about the diet. Read the comments so you can see how no one agrees on whatever stats there are.

    And one more thing: If you don’t like what I’m saying, then just don’t comment. Telling me to STFU because you don’t agree or you can’t stop yourself from acting like an a$$ has nothing to do with me. Get off that. It’s a public forum. If you don’t like people commenting on a public forum, then start your own blog so you can moderate comments and tailor them to your agenda.

  • Joe Commuter

    I agree that the response to you was funny in that it discounted your opinion by citing their own opinion that said…

    “A year after the road diet was implemented, another pedestrian was hit
    crossing the street at the same place. This man was not killed thank
    God, but he was injured. Why? How did that happen? I thought the
    road diet was supposed to make that street safer, right? Well it
    didn’t. But why?”

    It sounds like it was safer if a person was hit in the same spot but didn’t get killed. It’s just pure speculation, but maybe the man would not have been as lucky if Rowena still had 2 lanes in each direction and the car was traveling faster.

  • Slexie

    The problem isn’t the traffic, it’s the light. And saying that someone was hit and not killed therefore it’s safer is flat out ridiculous. This happened at night, so people still speed even if there is a road diet or not. The road diet isn’t doing anything to slow people down. Sorry.

  • These lanes will connect to other bike lanes on Eagle Rock Blvd, homey. Also, it isn’t possible to build a complete network in one fell swoop. What seems like patchwork at one point in time often coalesces into a more complete network a few years down the road. You’re insulted because you’re short-sighted.

  • Can there only be one problem? Perhaps the problem is both high speeds and lack of light. I completely agree that the lighting on Rowena is horrible, and the project is half-assed without enhanced lighting. But people sped like crazy on that stretch, and now they’re not because they’re forced to go the pace of the slowest driver. That’s the beauty of road diets!

  • Slexie

    No that’s not true. The only time traffic is slowed is rush hour. And the city still has not addressed the light issue in the area. People still speed through there, that’s probably why that guy was hit. And he was going across the street because he was parked there, because the restaurant didn’t have enough parking. There is another video on YouTube with a lady talking about the issue on the night that guy was hit.

  • Joe Commuter

    You aren’t presenting any data to demonstrate people aren’t going slower during the evenings. Even if it’s slowed down from 40mph to 30mph at night, that makes a big difference. Even a 5mph reduction can be the difference between life and death. Without knowing the exact circumstances (how many cars were ahead of the one that hit the man, how close were they, had the closest light just changed from red to green, etc) you can’t say the road diet didn’t save the man’s life. I’m not claiming it did, but because the situation is described as being very similar to the one that killed the woman, except the only seeming difference is the road diet, I am lead to be live it could have played a role.

  • Well, then your experience is different than mine. I’m never on that road at rush hour – only at other times. And every time I’m on Rowena at non-rush hour times, vehicles are moving at a reasonable pace. That is, they aren’t speeding (in great part because I’m not speeding, and therefore all the cars behind me aren’t speeding either). But it’s not like all the cars in front of me are zooming far ahead. I’m always cruising behind another car. So, that car in front of me is also driving the speed limit.

  • Slexie

    Ridiculous. You have no idea who is or isn’t speeding. Did you sit out there with a speed gun and time all the drivers you saw? Didn’t think so. Read the article I linked to and read what the other residents have to say. You should also check out the video from Waverly. And if no one is speeding, then maybe that guy I mentioned earlier wouldn’t have been hit. You have no way of knowing who is or isn’t speeding.

  • Slexie

    That could have been dumb luck. I don’t even care about the speed because that’s not the issue. There isn’t enough light there. And that makes it doubly dangerous if you’re riding a bike. Try making a left turn at Fletcher on a bike coming north on Rowena. That bike path is so dangerous right there. There’s a video on youtube of a woman talking to some officer while a fireman wipes blood off the street when that guy was struck. I’m not wasting my time linking to it because no matter what I say, everyone thinks I’m wrong. She goes on about the people hit there and how they tell their council people every time, but they never listen. Others have been hit there too, you just don’t hear about it.

    As far as data goes, there are conflicting reports so there’s no point in showing them. Read the article I linked and read the comments to see the dispute about the data. That’s why all I have to go on is MY EXPERIENCE, MY PERSONAL EXPERIENCE. Have I biked that lane, yes. Is it dangerous, yes. Are there other bikers there? A couple. Do I use that bike lane often? No, because it’s too dangerous. Try biking from Los Feliz to the Costco in Glendale. Try risking your life on the bridge getting back. It bites. Good thing the bike lane ends before the bridge, because that’s safe. So compile all the data you want. Doesn’t mean a thing to me.

  • Joe Commuter

    Fun fact: the Costco is actually in City of Los Angeles.

    So if everything is personal opinion, what are you (or anyone else) bringing to this discussion that can’t be disputed?

    But yes, bike infrastructure is substandard here. To me, the solution is to enhance bike infrastructure so that people make travel choices not based on which feels the most safe, but by which is best for a particular trip. Going somewhere within 3 miles where parking is limited? Take the bike. Going to Costco where parking is plentiful? Take the car. Going Downtown? Take transit or whatever.

    It’s absurd that we have basically designed our city and streets so that the most dangerous and least efficient mode of travel (automobile) is the most convenient and feels safest. This has come with consequences that I don’t need to elaborate on too much but include blighted landscape, dangerous streets for walking/biking, expensive housing, isolated people (those too old/young/poor to drive are often left immobile or dependent on someone who can drive). Can we reverse this over night? of course not. Should we fight to change it? Yes, if we care about the well-being of future generations.

  • Slexie

    No! You don’t get to do that! You don’t get to tell me or anyone else how to travel. If I want to take my bike to Costco, I’m taking my bike to Costco. It’s really no one’s business how I or anyone else choose to get around. You really have no say in that. If you don’t like drivers, fine. But you don’t get to decide how they travel either. There is nothing wrong with driving a car and for most people it’s the most efficient way to travel. Not everyone is in shape to ride a bike and not everyone has an extra 2 hours to use public transit every day. And you better believe that safety is always my first consideration. I’m not taking public transit if I have to work late. Ditto for the bike. Safety is the top concern.

    And if you want things to be safer, then the people making decisions about bike infrastructure should be bikers. Who thought it was a good idea to put a bike lane right beside the door zone in the Valley? No one is getting on a bike unless they feel safe. The city is making strides, but they keep making dumb mistakes that are making people not bike. Do the people who go to Ciclavia vaporize after it’s over? That’s how many bikers there could be every day, but the city has this bs idea to “take the lane” and people aren’t into that. Grade separated bike lanes are the best answer. But the city is too busy trying to push bikes and cars together. It’s not working.

  • Joe Commuter

    I was just setting an example… by all means, ride your bike to Costco. I was just setting an example do demonstrate that a car is not always the most convenient option of travel, but sometimes is.

    See, you say I can’t tell anyone how to travel, yet by maintaining the status quo we are telling people to drive, even when it doesn’t really make sense on a large scale in a highly populated city like LA. Do you understand that the status quo is not neutral?

    Yes, I am agreeing that people don’t ride because of safety concerns. But people should not have to worry about safety. I am saying ALL modes of travel should be safe, because they aren’t today. We aren’t gonna get there by keeping things just the way they are.

  • Joe Linton

    gannysesh already pointed out the connections. Depending how you count it, these are 10-12 blocks. Relatively short bike lane projects are not the be-all end-all… but I see them as a genuine safety improvement for the area, and a downpayment towards a future full network.

  • Arguing on the internet is fun! I am NOT arguing that no one is speeding on Rowena anymore, silly. So, in another comment you stated, “That’s why all I have to go on is MY EXPERIENCE, MY PERSONAL EXPERIENCE.” In my comment I gave you my experience on Rowena, and yet you replied with, “You have no idea who is or isn’t speeding.” Is this a double standard, or perhaps you have trust issues? Your personal experience counts, but the personal experiences of others do not. Got it.

    You’re arguing that road diets have no impact on speeding vehicles. Good luck with that argument.

  • I’ll also add that I ride a bike on this stretch every day, and though in my ideal world the road buffet would continue to Riverside, I’m very happy about the current plan. I also drive on it regularly, and I think this will make the driving experience better.

  • Slexie

    Yes because you and one other car you’re driving behind aren’t speeding so no one is speeding? How does that make any sense? Your opinion is fine but the conclusions you draw can’t be correct.

  • Remember how five seconds I stated that I’m not arguing that no one is speeding? It is tiresome to argue with someone who repeatedly misunderstanding/distorts my message.

    I’ll try again, starting with a basic physics lesson: cars can not drive through one another. If there is only one travel lane in each direction, and one car on this stretch is driving the speed limit, then every car behind that car has to also go the speed limit. Every single time I drive on this street, the cars travelling on it are going the speed limit. CAVEAT: I’m not driving on it 24 hours a day!!!! People certainly still speed on it. But their ability to do so has been hindered by the reduction of a lane. Take a drive on Rowena (toward Glendale Blvd) and check out how people speed up after it crosses Glendale Blvd and a second lane is added.

    Looking forward to you telling me: I’m wrong; I’m lying; I have no idea what I’m talking about.

  • Slexie

    I never said you were wrong and I never said you were lying. I said you can’t say no one else is speeding just because you and one other car in front of you were not . Do you understand that basic physics? Please give me another long winded retort demanding I comment of something I never said.

  • Fine, you didn’t say I was lying (though you implied that with others – “I still don’t believe you.”), but you certainly told me I was wrong. “No that’s not true.” “Ridiculous. You have no idea who is or isn’t speeding.”

    Again, I’m not saying NO ONE is speeding. This discussion is deranged!

  • Slexie

    Yes but the answer can’t be what they are doing either. Driving is not going away in LA. Putting bikes on the same road as cars isn’t the answer. We need grade separated bike lanes like the one on Chandler in the Valley. I’m not settling for bike lanes in the door zone of parked cars. I’m not settling for bike lanes going by a freeway on or off ramp. I’m not settling for those unsafe measures that are not encouraging people to ride their bikes. If anything, it makes people feel less safe. It’s never going to be perfect, but c’mon! Whoever is making these decisions doesn’t bike in the slightest! They choose the busiest streets to put a bike lane in and then wonder why the bike lane sits empty. And don’t kid yourself, the bike lobbyists here do just as many sneaky underhanded things as any politician. They just have an easier time manipulating people because they can play on your sympathies.

  • Slexie

    ” And every time I’m on Rowena at non-rush hour times, vehicles are moving at a reasonable pace. That is, they aren’t speeding (in great part because I’m not speeding, and therefore all the cars behind me aren’t speeding either).”

    You have your opinion, but the conclusions you draw from them can’t be right. That’s what I said. I don’t believe what the other guy said about the roads he described because he didn’t give any opinion about it. I speak about the 2 streets I drive on and bike on the most, Rowena and Virgil. I can’t speak on 7th which that guy mentioned but still gave no opinion on it at all. There’s no double standard. Am I wrong saying you don’t know who is or isn’t speeding? No! And I don’t know either, it’s an incorrect assumption on your part to try to say no one speeds since the road diet and it’s not a reasonable conclusion. Have you seen the videos from Waverly? There’s some impact from the road diet. But thank God you and the people behind you aren’t speeding, debate over.

  • M

    And yet Chandler is not an example of biking perfection and what we should be replicating everyplace. It still has TONS of issues. I was just biking on there yesterday and I nearly got doored multiple times by people flinging open doors without care near NoHo station, the section of the bike path between NoHo and Laurel is pretty cracked and triggering the buttons/signals can be a giant pain in the ass.

  • Slexie

    So quit replying to me. Is someone holding a gun to your head making you type out responses? I really hope not because despite your dislike of my comments, I certainly wouldn’t want that to be true. I’m not totally heartless.

  • Slexie

    I agree, but that part isn’t grade separated is it? I’m sorry, I meant the part where the path is along that center median. I’ve been nearly doored a few times myself along there. Do you mean the Orange Line bike path? The worst is that part just under the 170 where it’s pitch black at night. I mean there are not street lights and the thick trees block any moonlight or light from evening clouds. Anyone biking that way after sunset without lights is in trouble. The part where you cross over Oxnard is a clusterfu*# too. Trying to get over to the left after the light to get back on the bike path is a crap shoot. I usually walk my bike through the intersection and get to the corner instead of trying to bike with traffic on that stretch.

  • Slexie

    Yes, quoting you is a waste of time.


This Week In Livable Streets

It is Bike Month, so there are lots of great rides and workshops, including the first ever Southeast Cities CicLAvia. Key meetings, too, regarding L.A.’s Mobility Plan, Fletcher Drive bike lanes, Caltrans statewide bike plan, and parking in Santa Monica. Monday 5/9 – The L.A. County Bicycle Coalition has proclaimed today as Mobility Monday. The coalition […]