Great Streets Upgrade Makes Mar Vista’s Venice Blvd Safer For Walking, Biking

Keep L.A. Moving pushed against the Mar Vista Venice Boulevard road diet, which remained in place as data showed safety gains.  Photo by Joe Linton/Streetsblog L.A.
Keep L.A. Moving pushed against the Mar Vista Venice Boulevard road diet, which remained in place as data showed safety gains. Photo by Joe Linton/Streetsblog L.A.

Construction on Mar Vista’s Venice Boulevard Great Streets makeover is not quite complete, but new protected bike lanes and pedestrian crossings are already in use. The improvements extend 0.8-miles along Venice Boulevard from Inglewood Boulevard to Beethoven Street in the City of Los Angeles’ Mar Vista neighborhood.

This stretch of Venice Blvd was included at the outset of the mayoral Great Streets Initiative announced in 2014. It is also one of the 40 dangerous priority corridors identified in the city’s Vision Zero Action Plan. According to a city fact sheet, since 2011, this stretch has seen 48 pedestrians and cyclists seriously injured in crashes. Additionally, city speed surveys found 15-18 percent of drivers breaking speeding laws by exceeding the 40 mph speed limit.

The current improvements were the subject of an extensive community input process that got underway in 2015, under the leadership of City Councilmember Mike Bonin, the Mar Vista Community Council and the Mar Vista Chamber of CommerceProtected bike lanes, new mid-block crossings, and a road diet were announced in 2016, but were delayed as the city sought and obtained control of the street which had been overseen by Caltrans.

The project broke ground in February and construction is still underway, but appears nearly complete.

Venice Boulevard crosswalk under construction at Ocean View Avenue
Venice Boulevard crosswalk under construction at Ocean View Avenue

For many years, it has been difficult for pedestrians to cross Venice Blvd. Though the street has a landscaped median island, pedestrians were only officially able to get across at signalized intersections every 3-4 blocks. The Great Streets project has added four new mid-block pedestrian crossings. Technically these are perhaps not “mid-block” but are located at smaller formerly un-crossable un-signalized intersections at Mountain View Avenue, Ocean View Avenue, Boise Street, and Meier Street. Each site includes a pair of offset crosswalks extending from sidewalks to a median refuge, plus new signals.

New Venice Boulevard pedestrian crossing signal at
New Venice Boulevard pedestrian crossing signal at Boise Street. The residential portion on the south side of Venice Boulevard west of Wasatch Avenue features a buffered bike lane.
New Venice Boulevard pedestrian crossing under construction at Meier Street
New Venice Boulevard pedestrian crossing under construction at Meier Street

The project also included a road diet reducing through-traffic lanes from three in each direction to just two, and adding parking-protected bike lanes. These are the city’s third parking-protected bike lanes, after similar Great Streets improvements on Reseda Boulevard, and Van Nuys Boulevard. Venice Blvd is just the city’s seventh protected bike lane facility.

Cyclist in new Venice Boulevard protected bike lane in Mar Vista
Cyclist riding past BikeRoWave on Venice Boulevard's new parking protected bike lanes
Cyclist riding past BikeRoWave on Venice Boulevard’s new parking protected bike lanes

According to the Great Streets website, the project also includes leading pedestrian intervals and upgrading of existing crosswalks.

  • LAdevelop

    This looks awesome. But why only buffered bike lanes near Boise? I’ve never understood why all buffered bike lanes aren’t parking protected. Don’t they take up they same amount of room but provide a much safer ride for cyclists? I can’t imagine they’re that much more expensive either, as the only really difference appears to be location of the paint and the addition of the plastic bollards.

  • HowieZowie

    At a meeting of the West Mar Vista Neighborhood Association on May 25, a report was given on this project. The WMVNA, a grass-roots association, is ls composed mainly of long-term Mar Vista residents. The Chairman asked the thirty or so members present for their impression of the newly installed changes to Venice Blvd and nearly all responded negatively.

    Needless to say there were few if any bicycle riders present. Residents were concerned that the project reduced the number of traffic lanes, that the “bollards” would reduce fire department access in case of an emergency, and that the new signals would also slow down traffic. Oh, I forgot, slowing down traffic is a good thing.

    For most, this was the first time they had heard the term “lane diet,” and it was not well received.

    It is nice that the article is accompanied by posed photos showing bike riders in the foreground, but you can get a hint of the real situation by searching in the background for a hint of even one additional bike rider in sight.

  • Joe Commuter

    You seriously think these are staged photos?

  • HowieZowie

    Well, not necessarily staged. But if you stand in those spots and snap a picture at a random time, you will most likely not see any bicycles. Perhaps they waited long enough to get the kind of shot they wanted. Just speculating.

  • Vooch

    one difference between motor lanes and protected bike lanes that drivers usually do not perceive is cars take up huge amounts of space and are rather loud.

    therefore, it often appears that the motor lanes are heavily used and the PBL is ’empty’

    reality is 10 bikes in a PBL looks empty while 10 cars in a motor lane is a congested traffic jam.

    Bikes take up less than 1/10 the lane space versus cars and a bike lane has 3x the capacity of a motor lane.

    Venice Blvd is a perfect place for installing PBLs and improving capacity of the roadway.

  • I wish we had the budget for staged photos.

  • HowieZowie

    We can learn some interesting things by studying what happened in Seville. You can read about it in an article in and another in Before the Communists came to power in city government, Seville had only about 0.5% of journeys made by bike. Then, after the leftist government built a very extensive, fully connected network of completely segregated bike lanes, a recent audit found 6% of all trips were made by bike. Very nice for bike riders, but not a significant impact on the environment or traffic.

    Unless you are a follower of the bike rider religion. Then 5% is a big change and worth any cost if it’s in the bicycle direction, but much larger numbers don’t matter, or are actually good, if we are talking about impeding auto traffic.

    Of course, each city is different.

  • jwwz

    Same down on Venice from 4th through to Redondo…

  • jwwz

    I work facing Venice along this stretch and I assure the WMVNA that there are lots lots lots of people making use of these facilities (bike and pedestrian).

  • Ray

    There is a now a petition to remove the Great Streets changes. Although the Mar Vista community will be the most vocal, the real pain will be felt by commuters that don’t live in the area. The problem with Venice Blvd is that it is the main route for many commuters due to the overbuilding of office space in Venice without thinking about the transportation impacts. Venice Blvd is fine to support a road diet, except during those commuting hours. The next step will be change the parking lane to a bus-only lane during commuting hours. Hopefully that will shift office commuters into the buses and out of their cars. Better yet, we should start a push for congestion pricing, since the roads can’t handle any more cars from outside the area.

  • HowieZowie

    I’m sure there are lots of bikes, but there are also lots of cars. For each 100 cars that pass by, how many bikes pass by?

    I’m sure the answer depends on the time of day, but how about during rush hour?

    You reduced the number of car lanes from three to two. How much effect does that have on traffic flow at rush hour?

  • Zack in Venice

    Why does StreetsBlog want to create traffic by writin such a 1-sided article? Why is the City of L.A. turning Venice Blvd into Lincoln Blvd. ? Mike Bonin and Eric Garcetti should implement congestion lanes for both of these streets and allow buses to drive in the right lanes. Instead, they put white safety cones in front of the parking lane, preventing any vehicle from using it. This also hurts emergency response times during rush hour.
    Now everyone will instead use side streets, creating more local traffic.
    As a bicyclist, I understand the need to have those safety cones, but removing a whole lane was too much.
    Venic Blvd is heavily trafficked and this will hurt commuters on weekdays and even worse, it prevents millions of tourists from wanting to go to Venice Beach on the weekends.

  • Zack in Venice

    Great ideas Ray.

  • Zack in Venice

    Thank you for acknowledging that 30 people attended. Traffic if the #1 problem in Los Angeles. Hopefully Lincoln Blvd. also implements congestion parking to increase from 2 lanes to 3 just as the smart people of Marina Del Rey and Playa Vista have it at 3 lanes during rush hour.

  • HowieZowie

    I agree. Traffic is the number one problem, at least in West LA. In the past thirty three years I have lived in West LA, gridlock has become exponentially worse, especially in the past 10 years or so. In many of our neighborhoods, there are now places that you just can’t get to during rush hour.

    Inadequate schools, homelessness, crime, pollution, walkable streets, bicycles are all important, but none of them matter if you can’t get around. And don’t tell me I should walk or ride a bicycle. That will never be more than a tiny part of the solution for LA.

  • Joe Linton

    So… by “posed” you mean “not posed” – right? I took those photos. They’re of course not posed/staged at all (and if you look closely you can spot cyclists and pedestrians in the background.) If you’re not seeing bicyclists on Venice Blvd, I suspect that you’re probably just there in a car and you aren’t looking for them. Have you tried walking or biking there since the improvements?

  • Joe Linton
  • Vooch

    the key metric is bike to private car ratio which in Seville is approximately 1:3 today.

    so bikes appear to carry 30% of roadway traffic despite having 5% of roadway space.

    private cars carry 67% of roadway traffic with 93% of roadway space.

  • HowieZowie

    Where did you get these numbers? The Guardian article said 6% of all trips were made by bike. You say 30%.

  • HowieZowie

    I have tried driving there.

  • Vooch

    the bike to car ratio is about 1:3

  • HowieZowie

    So you don’t have an answer and instead change the subject and present made-up “facts.”

    Here are data from

    “…For many years Seville had only about 0.5% of journeys made by bike …”

    As of 2014, “…6% of all trips were made by bike…”

    From 0.5% to 6% is an impressive increase, but not enough to have a significant effect on transportation overall. And even for that increase, one should subtract the loss of bus lanes and traffic lanes and the cost of constructing the dedicated bike paths.

  • Vooch

    traffic lanes have been increased not decreased

    bikes are traffic 😂

  • amy gue

    This project is a disaster. I’m a bike rider myself and it’s pretty stupid how they moved the parking in the middle of the street so that when cars driving need to make a right turn they have to cross over the lane of parked cars and then the bike lane and the parked cars blocks visibility of oncoming bikes from those drivers who are turning. It also has caused more soul-crushing traffic. Honestly, traffic really does cause depression and anxiety. This used to be a really usable street for bikes and cars….now it is neither.

  • Jen A.

    Love this change. I am an infrequent/semi-novice bicyclist and this makes me feel so much braver about local bike errands!

  • Willie G Neighbor

    The worst design ever, and after several biker and pedestrian deaths and many, many wrecks the entire thing will be ripped out and returned to normal within 2 years, I guarantee it! And I paid for this clusterF**** yet never voted on it?…how does THAT happen. It’s MY neighborhood, and trust me, with a 5000 sq ft house I paid for much of it.
    What genius designed this mess? We lost 2 full lanes of vehicle traffic, and it’s already a massive bottleneck from 2pm on, with buses unable to merge back into traffic.
    Fire the dummy who designed this, fire Boner, fire that a**wipe Mayer, and Governor Alzheimer. While you’re at it, blow up the WAZE app and give me Grand View Blvd back, I can’t even get into my driveway at 4pm-6pm, have had to literally pull some smug [expletive deleted] thought his open window who was blocking me for no reason…yes, the grin left his face.

  • ChicagoWay

    You go Willie G! My wife and I were trapped in this government created goat rodeo disguised as Venice Boulevard during last night’s rush hour just trying to get from Sawtelle to the beach. There were ZERO bikes using the new lanes.

    Fellow motorists around us rolled down their windows to join in the bitchfest about this idiotic development as we sat idling and waiting for traffic to crawl. This is so SILLY and SAD. I would like to donkey punch the pajama boy mayor as a wake-up call to reality.

  • paulrandall

    Will they be measuring the increase or decrease in emissions and air quality in this neighborhood? What does the AQMD have to say about improvements that decrease air quality?

  • mrsman

    Venice Blvd is 3 lanes each direction from the Ocean to past La Brea, except for this half-mile in Mar Vista. Isn’t it obvious that by taking a lane out here a big traffic jam will be caused?

    Ideally, the project should be scrapped altogether. Other streets would be a better fit for bikeways ( Charnock, Victoria, Pacific) since they have low traffic.

    If not, then they should at least implement rush hour lanes on this stretch of Venice so that the parking lanes can be used for moving traffic during the busiest times and 3 lanes can be maintained during rush hour, even if it shrinks to 2 lanes at other times.

  • Farrah

    A total and complete idiotic design! Congrats! Making traffic times LONGER for those in a car as a opposed to those on a bike. About 90% : 5%

  • D Man

    I live at Moore/Mitchell and have been watching this from a street level view (walking my dog 3 times per day). The pro-great streets comments on here are based on a false assumption that creating a safer street for bikes will meaningfully increase bike usage. The flaw in the assumption is that creating a .8 mile road that is safer for bikes does not encourage bike usage by anyone who is not traveling from point a to point b along that route. Since this area is mostly single family homes/low density there are only a few people within the 1 mile area using it versus the tens of thousands of people every day that travel through it to destinations that are not bikeable.

    If you want to see what this really looks like, I started a twitter account (@GridlockVenice) and have been posting pictures from the morning/evening and on weekends (when I’m walking my dog). You will see gridlock and no bikes. And arguing about what they did in Seville is not persuasive. Seville is 54 sq miles compare to LA (503 sq miles) and the LA metro area (4,751 sq miles). You can travel across Seville on a bike in 15-20 minutes.

  • KeithC

    Nice job. The side streets are overflowing with cars going 50 mph. What an amazing plan you guys have at city hall. One day you’re approving construction projects for a million new luxury living spaces, and the next day you’re making the streets narrower. Brilliant.

  • Ronbo

    I was amazed and appalled when I ran into this “diet” the other day. Venice Blvd is a major crosstown thoroughfare, like Pico, Olympic, etc. It serves as a way to get from one side of town to the other, that’s why it has so many lanes in each direction. Perhaps that bothers you, well sorry it’s called a fact. Great Streets can work on smaller side streets in a given neighborhood like Mar Vista, say Inglewood or Grand View. It would make them into essentially pedestrian malls and would benefit locals. Blocking off 2 lanes of Venice is a major disservice to everyone else in the city. It’s a commuting street and always has been, put in a few more crosswalks and lights if you need to but you can’t just narrow it down to make some nearbys happy. That is just not right.

  • johnpjones

    The first question that came to my mind upon seeing this nightmare of a “clusterf***” on Venice Blvd. … and then experiencing how it “works” … was “Was someone actually paid to design this???”

    3-lanes have been turned into 2-lanes. How can it not result in a bottleneck.??? When (especially during rush-hour) someone is maneuvering to park in one of the new spaces … that further jams Venice Blvd. traffic. Then, for however long it takes to park a car, Venice is reduced to ONE land of moving cars.

    Streets that are offshoots to and from Venice Blvd. have had their red curbs extended (north and south) from the corners, so residents (who already suffer limited curb parking space near where they live) now have even less curb parking space.

    Cars turning onto Venice Blvd. from offshoot streets must nose out farther (like 1/3 of the way) into Venice Blvd. to make their turns. Exiting Venice onto offshoot streets causes cars to have to go wider than they used to … no more trying to hug the corner on turns.

    Been here over 50-years, had a business on Venice Blvd. in Mar Vista for 5+ years …. and this is the dumbest thing I have ever seen. I’m all for protecting cyclists and pedestrians (I’m both), but the new crosswalks should benefit pedestrians and lots of signs cautioning car drivers to watch for cyclists and pedestrians could have helped and been way less expensive and way less screwed-up than this ill-conceived project. Like much of the “development” in L.A. (especially here in Mar Vista, Venice, Play Vista, MdR) … not enough thought is put into “planning” and even less thought into environmental impact. Gawd forbid anyone will be in an ambulance rushing to a hospital during “rush hour” on Venice Blvd.. I think we’re going to discover that “Great Street” is pretty much like Trump’s “Make America Great Again”. That is, there’s gonna be much less “great” and way more “danger”.

  • Xing Lu

    Very true. Drive alone this road since many years ago and this is the most driver-unfriendly design I had ever seen. The bootleneck effect already appears. Right after I park in mitsuwa marketplace I decide to check on google how this stupid thing happened. The street used to has best traffic during busy hours thanks to the three-lane design. And now I just sitting in my car watching the terrible traffic jam at4:30pm

  • Francis Mulhare

    Taking away a travel lane = congestion almost 100% of the time no matter how light the traffic.
    People walking to/from their parked cars now have to cross bike lane..there will be bike /ped accidents.

    Cars making right hand turns have a very difficult time seeing the bike lane. Mirrors are useless u have to turn your head and look directly behind you.

    The whole set up is weird and causes confusion among motorists who have not encountered it before. I witnessed one driving right into the bike lane instead going around the bollard to make a turn.

  • Post-a-CommentHere

    Just absurd and further confirmation that the people running Los Angeles are liberal lunatics.

  • David Veloz

    Traffic on Venice was congested before this pilot program. It will be hell again if this program doesn’t go forward and Venice goes back to how it was before. NOTHING will reduce congestion except people figuring out other ways to use the road. It won’t happen overnight, but the idea is to make cycling less intimidating. It has worked elsewhere and it can work here. I’m a fat fuck and I can get to Hollywood from Venice on my bike quicker than I can in my car during commute hours.

  • HardLessons

    Great idea. Everyone should just show up to work sweaty as fuck smelling like a gym sock.

  • HardLessons

    I’ve seen multiple cars parked in the bike lane because people don’t know what the fuck to do.

  • Paul

    If you’re sweaty as fuck riding on a flat street you’re doing something wrong.

  • Paul

    No, just smarter thinkers than you.

  • Post-a-CommentHere

    Nope. Lunatics are lunatics. Liberalism = religious lunacy.

  • HardLessons

    All the streets in LA are flat? News to me. Everyone isn’t just riding their bike a couple miles down Venice to get to work, you do realize people commute from all over right? That’s the problem with you great-street-evangelists, you think everyone has the same experience as you. “Great Streets” is great for a handful of people but awful for the majority. I’m a cyclist and drive a car. Enforcing traffic laws on bicycles would lower accident rates more than removing a lane. It’s common place to see people riding bikes on the side walk, riding the wrong direction, doing track stands and riding in circles in intersections, blowing stop signs and redlights. I know it happens but I’ve never in my 30+ years living in LA seen a cyclist get a ticket.

  • Matthew Stumphy

    I’m a cyclist, I’ve ridden this stretch of road hundreds (and possibly into the thousands) of times since I moved here in 1999. Perhaps because of all that experience, I was never intimidated by the road. I am certainly worried about smacking into a pedestrian now, though. Also, the cars making right turns off of Venice scare me a lot more than they used to. It used to be that they would cross the bike lane first and then do their right turn after. It’s still kinda like that at Centinela, except that they don’t cross the bike lane anymore..they just join it. That worries the crap out of me.

    On smaller side streets, there is no more room to cross the bike lane before they make their right turn. There is just a very sharp turn that forces them to slow down quite a bit while still in the lane on Venice with other cars behind them. I saw a guy tonight screw this up. He didn’t slow down enough so he ended up on the left side of the side street he was pulling onto. Luckily that side street didn’t have anyone waiting there for him to ram into head on. In any case, he certainly didn’t seem to be paying much attention to me, the pedestrian who was about to cross the very street he was pulling onto from the far side…he was too screwed up with his turn to notice me there. Glad I hadn’t been walking faster.

    My point is that I don’t think these changes really make things safer. I think they just change how the accidents will happen. A cyclist won’t get hit by a car on the straightaway unless the car screws up and goes down the bike lane. But cyclists will ram into pedestrians who suddenly step into the bike lane in front of them to go to their car. I think cyclists might actually be more likely to get hit when they cross side streets because the intersections are so confusing, and the right turns are either really sharp now or they force the driver to merge into the bicycle lane until they get to the corner. The best defense against getting right hooked by a car at an intersection for a cyclist is simple visibility. Having us back over by the sidewalk, I suspect, will just make us harder to see. So I’m certain there are going to be a lot more bicycle/pedestrian collisions, and I’m a bit worried that right hook bicycle/automobile collisions are actually going to go up.

    So that’s all in reply to your point about making cycling less intimidating. I’m sure you feel less intimidated, and I can’t say that your feeling isn’t valid. I’m just saying I feel less safe than I used to on that bike path.

    Now, in regards to your mention of congestion, you’re right that Venice was congested before. However, I bet it’s now twice as bad. Really. It’s because ther are so many cross streets with traffic lights, and now new crosswalks with traffic lights. Every time you stop a bunch of cars, it takes a long time for them to get going again, because whereas cars always stop really quick to avoid ramming the car in front of them, they speed up really slow…also to avoid ramming the car in front of them. Watch the reaction times as each driver in a row of cars at a light that just turned green start to go. Stopwatch it, even. It can be pretty gruesome.

    The longer the line of cars at a traffic light, the less likely they’re all going to get through on one cycle. This is both because there are more of the reaction time lags when there are more cars, and because the distance to cover to get through the intersection is greater. If they don’t all get through on one cycle, then the line will be even longer on the next cycle, and it will be even less likely that all the cars will get through. Pretty soon, cars are backed up to the previous intersection, and now cross traffic is unable to join the main road. And voila, you have a traffic jam.

    The problem is amplified when there are fewer lanes. With only two lanes, two slow drivers with really poor reaction times can hold up the whole road. With three lanes, cars could change lanes to the lane that was moving better to get around those two.

    So while you might think that going from 3 lanes to 2 will decrease the road’s capacity to exactly 2/3 of what it was, you’d be very wrong. Because of all those lag times and greater distances to cover to get through intersections, you’re lucky if you have half the capacity you used to have. Then when you add more traffic lights for crosswalks, you again amplify the problem. I wouldn’t be at all surprised if the section of Venice where they made all these changes can only handle a third, or on a bad day, even a QUARTER of what it could handle before.

    So with that significant drop in capacity, you’re going to get a whole lot of new unforeseen problems. Drivers pulling off Venice and flooding side streets where the local neighborhood kids are riding their scooters. Exacerbated drivers tired of waiting in a place they didn’t have to wait before losing their tempers and making poor decisions…potentially causing more accidents. Drivers being on the road for a longer time…once again potentially causing more accidents. All the benefits that you get from having fewer cars on the road are erased when those fewer cars have to be on the road for more time.

    I agree and disagree with what you said about nothing reducing congestion. I agree that there was congestion before. But you seem to intimate that it was worse before when you compare how it was to hell. The part where I disagree is from my own long personal experience driving and cycling up and down Venice for 18 years. Congestion is significantly worse now. If it was hell before, it’s having your head trapped in Satan’s toilet after a nine-course Mexican meal, three laxatives, and twelve gallons of Mountain Dew now.

    If I try to make a run to Lincoln in my car at some time other than rush hour, I still get stuck in that bottleneck in a traffic jam, being stopped at many of the traffic lights for 2 or even 3 cycles. There’s no way I’m going to try to run that blockade at 5:30 on a weekday. Like you said, it would be faster on a bicycle. It was never like that before. So I am absolutely certain that if they went back to the way the road was before, the congestion would definitely decrease.

    I don’t think that cycling and pedestrian accidents would be terribly affected but this. A very small percentage of bike accidents (something like 2%) involving cars happen in bike lanes. Something like 45% happen in intersections, though. So while I do think it will be virtually impossible for a bike in the new bike lane to get hit by a car, I don’t think that was really a problem that we needed to solve. I think that the likelihood of bikes getting reamed at the intersections may have actually gone up because of what I mentioned above. And certainly there will now be more bicycle/pedestrian accidents as cyclists who ride fast have pedestrians unexpectedly step in front of them. So I really don’t think we’re gaining any safety for the price we’re paying in increased congestion.

    Now if your overall idea is that by removing a lane of the road, it will make driving on it so awful that people will be forced to give up their cars and bike to work, I think you’re being far too optimistic. There may be a few who will do this, but the number will never be enough to make it so that the drivers can get through that zone as quickly as they could previously. Based on my guesses about how badly the capacity of the road has been affected, it would mean that 2/3 of the drivers would have to start cycling. Good luck getting that to happen.

    I think we should switch back to how it was. In the future, there will be changes that smooth out the whole thing and decrease congestion. In the same way that the internet became ubiquitous in a very short amount of time, and in the same way that cell phones turned into tiny pocket computers virtually overnight, I expect that there will be a revolution in automobiles. Self driving cars will become catapult past being a novelty to being the norm. Pretty soon, a very large number of us will opt not to own a car at all. Instead we’ll just order whatever the future iteration of Uber is to run our errands or get to work or whatever. Those lag times I was talking about will evaporate, because the self driving cars will be able to react to each other much more efficiently than we do now. So I suspect in a decade or two we’ll have cars moving faster, more efficiently, and more safely than they do now, possibly with fewer of them on the road, and without the need for so much parking, such that the road might be able to be even wider. That should take care of our current congestion problems. In the meantime, I really think we could use that extra lane back.

  • Galina

    I had an accident in my car turning right on Ocean View less than 1 month ago. I watch on bike line and pedestrian walkway, but skateboarder hit my car.

  • David Veloz

    Gee, tens of thousands of people ride a bike to work every day without smelling like a gym sock. Commuting speeds are usually around 8 mph, well below workout level.

  • concerned local

    Another problem with this new setup is it is unsafe for the elderly. I saw a senior
    citizen walk into the bike lane thinking she was safe from traffic being
    behind the cars. She was nearly struck by a fast moving cyclist–who
    then yelled at her! This is unsafe for senior citizens.

  • fritz1212

    confused. The US Department of Transportation and the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration use traffic analysis that focuses on incidents per 100k. The National Transportation Safety Board uses traffic analysis that focuses on incidents per 100k.

    But the LADOT, headed by a person with no meaningful transportation experience, provides analysis simply comparing nominal data to nominal data.

    You see, when we use accepted, professional analysis of the Venice “Road Diet”, incidents/accidents per 100k, the accidents increase by 7%. When you use the nominal data which relies on reduced traffic owing to capacity reduction, people taking alternative routes, people avoiding the area altogether – they say it is safer.

    Do you see why we have a problem with the analysis and say the data is manipulated and misleading?

    For the radicalized among the LACBC I’ll translate: in LACBC radical speak: incidents/accidents = “awful f’n cagers purposefully inducing violence on an unsuspecting public, f’n cagers!”

  • Yes, yes we do. Thank you for sharing this information.