To consolidate, disseminate, and gather information concerning the 710 expansion into our San Rafael neighborhood and into our surrounding neighborhoods. If you have an item that you would like posted on this blog, please e-mail the item to Peggy Drouet at pdrouet@earthlink.net

Friday, May 3, 2013

For Immediate Release
May 3, 2013

The mission of the San Rafael Neighborhoods Association (SRNA) is to enhance and maintain the character and quality of all San Rafael neighborhoods through advocacy and an activated community. 
Fire Related Announcement  
PFD Pic  
A fire broke out around 1:00 PM on the east side of the 100 block of S. San Rafael Ave. Fire departments from Pasadena & Glendale responded and quickly put the fire out shortly before 2:00 PM. About 1 acre on the large property was burned including a vacant structure.

This area is included in the Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zone recently discussed by Fire Chief Wells at a SRNA public meeting in April.

Fire spokesperson Lisa Derderian stated that "with minimal winds, we were lucky with the Arroyo Seco just on the other side "

As recently reported in a previous SRNA newsletter regarding brush clearance, the fuel source in the Arroyo is immense and the fire danger on either slope poses threats to homes and the Arroyo itself.

PFD Engine Companies 33 & 38 arrived and quickly extinguished the flames and kept the fire from spreading further to other homes and into the Arroyo.

PFD was also deployed in the nearby Glendale 134/2 FWY fire that burned over 75 acres. Both departments quickly extinguished that fire as well.

Station #39 will re-open at the end of this year. 
 San Rafael Neighborhoods Association
Working to Preserve and Protect Our Community
Join SRNA--West Pasadena's newest and fast growing neighborhood organization dedicated to the San Rafael Neighborhoods Area. 

Member $20
Household $35
Sustaining $100
Patron $250
Benefactor $500

Contact us and send check by mail to:
San Rafael Neighborhoods Association (SRNA)
PO Box 92617
Pasadena, CA 91109
or join us at our website at
www.srnapasadena.org  and click the tab "Join Us"

Credit cards accepted 

The San Rafael Neighborhoods Association is registered with the City of Pasadena Neighborhood Connections.

Heavy Rail, or a Light Rail/BRT Mix? Garcetti and Greuel Discuss Options for Sepulveda Pass 


By Damien Newton, May 3, 2013
 ...sure you are...

“Behind me, you can see one of the most notorious symbols of LA traffic: Valley commuters stuck in the 405 South daily traffic jam,” began Wendy Greuel at her transportation themed press conference at the Sherman Oaks Galeria. “The 405-101 interchange is the most congested interchange in the United States.”

Greuel, the City Controller who is battling City Councilman Eric Garcetti to be the next mayor of Los Angeles, took a moment to yesterday to highlight what many Angelenos already know. There is not enough freeway space for the number of people that want to, or feel forced to, drive to get where they need to go.

That statement is doubly true for the 405.

Maybe the next mayor should do something about it.

One issue that both Garcetti and Greuel agree on is that further widening of the I-405 through the Sepulveda Pass, one of the few transportation links between the populous exhurbs of the Westside and San Fernando Valley, is a fool’s game. Both advocate for a strong and real transit alternative to driving on the 405.

And advocates agree. David Murphy is the head of Angelenos Against Gridlock (AAG).  In the past weeks, AAG earned a lot of media attention by attacking the widening and revealing the celebrity support of Elon Musk for highlighting how far behind, and over budget, the 405 widening project is.
But Murphy’s group isn’t arguing for further widening, but for rail expansion.

“What does all the attention to the 405 traffic, including even on Good Morning America today, say about the need for rail?” Murphy asked rhetorically in an email.
While both candidates agree that transit is the best way to move people through the pass, they each offer different solutions.

I am also committed to developing a relief project for the 405,” Greuel continued yesterday. “I began exploring this as a councilmember and, as mayor, I am ready to put those plans into action and provide relief to the 405 congestion. My plan supports investing in Bus Rapid Transit (BRT), Light Rail, dedicated lanes and prioritizing the city’s bike plan.”
But Garcetti doesn’t think light rail, even supplemented with other transportation options, is the answer. At a recent candidate forum broadcast by CBS 2/KCAL 9 and hosted by the National Council of Jewish Women Los Angeles and Bend the Arc, Garcetti made the case of a major investment in heavy rail, or even a subway through the mountains.

“If you look at the number of passengers we have to alleviate, light-rail probably wouldn’t do enough,” Garcetti is quoted as saying in Neon Tommy. “[The rail would] go from the north San Fernando Valley basically to LAX, including a transit tunnel through the 405 pass that would allow you to be able to go essentially from Sherman Oaks to UCLA in five or 10 minutes.”

While a tunnel may sound cost prohibitive, Greuel hasn’t ruled out the tunnel option. She noted that it might actually be easier to tunnel than build on or near the 405 given recent experiences.

Despite the higher cost of heavy rail, the plan does have backers in the transit advocacy community. The Transit Coalition proposes a “GEM Line” of heavy rail right through the mountains. Their proposal incudes stops throughout the San Fernando Valley starting at Sylmar and ending on Ventura Boulevard. Then there are another four stops on the Westside, including one at UCLA.
 Whether it’s Greuel’s transit mix or Garcetti’s heavy rail, the conversation sure has changed from a couple of years ago when then-Governor Schwarzenegger suggested double-decking the freeway.
However, to move a project for the Sepulveda Pass is going to require some political muscle. True, there is funding for a transit project for the Pass in Measure R, but under the current funding plan funds wouldn’t be available until the third decade of funding from the half cent sales tax. Again, both Garcetti and Greuel have pledged to work hard to accelerate construction of transit projects, but Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa can tell you that’s a lot easier said then done.
Despite assembling a national coalition of mayors and transit advocates, the Mayor’s famous America Fast Forward program acheived only modest reforms of federal funding formulas. All the logic in the world will be dashed against the rocks when pushed up against the short-sightedness of the House Republican Caucus. And without reforms that lower the 2/3 voter threshold needed to pass another transit tax, or an extension of the current one, it’s anyone’s guess whether another tax proposal would just pass the threshold as Measure R did in 2008 or just miss as Measure J did in 2012.
“We need to use our resources wisely including innovative funding mechanisms, like America Fast Forward bonds for Measure R to accelerate construction of priority transit and highway projects. Measure R transit projects will generate more than $67 billion in economic activity, adding 409,000 jobs, $25 billion in income and 8 billion in new tax revenues. But we need to keep up the momentum,” Greuel promised yesterday. “That means expediting the Subway to UCLA, extending the Expo Line to Santa Monica, and we have to get the Regional Connector built. I’ll also work closely with Sacramento and our Congressional delegation to make sure Los Angeles is getting our fair share of state and federal transportation dollars.” 
Garcetti agrees that it is important to find other ways to accelerate transportation and transit projects and has suggested that a second run at Measure J might be one of the best options.

L.A. Wants to Turn Its Concrete 'River' Into a Real River


By Lamar Anderson, May 3, 2013

Bodies of water have so much allure—particularly in overpaved cities—that we’re content to put up with the algae-scented funk of the Central Park pond, or even the stench of Brooklyn’s Gowanus Canal, just to rest our eyes on something blue (or, er, brown).

In recent years the Los Angeles River has enjoyed a renaissance. Though the waterway hasn’t really been a natural habitat since the 1930s (when the city lined the riverbed with concrete to control flooding), new bike paths, public art, and kayak tours now draw Angelenos to the water’s edge. So far these upgrades have been largely peripheral, due in large part to urban enthusiasts’ determination to start using the giant ditch they inherited as a river. Meanwhile, the city’s more substantial plan to transform the channel into a living habitat is mired in delays at the federal level.

The Los Angeles River Revitalization Plan, completed in 2007 by the landscape design firm Mia Lehrer + Associates, calls for the removal of most of the concrete and natural habitat restoration around the river. But, as the Architect’s Newspaper‘s Sam Lubell reports, a delay in a feasibility study by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers has stalled this ambitious project, putting everyone’s dreams of a green urban idyll on hold.

The Los Angeles River Revitalization Plan, completed in 2007 by the landscape design firm Mia Lehrer + Associates, calls for the removal of most of the concrete and natural habitat restoration around the river. But, as the Architect’s Newspaper‘s Sam Lubell reports, a delay in a feasibility study by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers has stalled this ambitious project, putting everyone’s dreams of a green urban idyll on hold.

The LA River today. Courtesy of the Los Angeles Bureau of Engineering.

Before work can proceed, the Corps must assess the flood risks and, counterintuitively, the habitat risks of altering the river’s makeup. (Are we worried that all those algae colonies will die off for want of concrete?) The feasibility study was scheduled to wind up at the end of this year, but six years of bureaucratic snares and funding mishaps have jeopardized that deadline.

Carol Armstrong, director of the Los Angeles River Project Office for the city’s Bureau of Engineering, told the Architect’s Newspaper that she expects the study to drag on because of a lack of support in Washington. "They’d rather add acres to the Everglades instead of changing a concrete channel in LA. It’s a cognitive shift we’re going to have to make," she said.

Next to Florida’s famous wetlands, yes, a concrete ditch doesn’t have much to offer as a natural wonder. But let’s hope the feds realize that a city waterfront—with all the Portlandia-style frolicking and bursts of economic activity that come with it—is ultimately urban good.

Rendering of a revitalized LA River with landscaping and public promenades. Courtesy of the Los Angeles Bureau of Engineering.

Courtesy of the Los Angeles Bureau of Engineering.

Why the Eagle Rock Chamber of Commerce Voted Against Bike Lanes

The chamber’s 17-0 vote opposing bike lanes on Colorado last week is the latest twist in a spreading controversy. 


By Ajay Singh, May 2, 2013


It’s a little past 5 p.m. on Thursday and Eagle Rock Chamber of Commerce President Michael Nogueira is preparing to go home after a hard day’s work at Sir Michael’s, his party rentals business on Eagle Rock Boulevard. Moments earlier, he parked a catering truck in the store’s driveway, backing it with practiced precision—never mind that the right side of the vehicle slightly scraped the outer wall of a flower shop next door, sending flakes of plaster flying.

As Nogueira stands on the sidewalk, facing the boulevard, a man driving a sparkling white Mercedes sedan waves casually at him. “Alatorre,” says Nogueira, returning the greeting. Minutes later, a man riding a bicycle cruises south on the boulevard, and Nogueira perks up.

“He doesn’t need a bicycle lane,” does he? Nogueira asks, instantly answering his own question: “No, he doesn’t.”

If Nogueira gets his way, no biker in Eagle Rock will get to ride in a bike lane, and he’s hardly the only member of the community to oppose plans by the Department of Transportation to create a bike lane along both sides of Colorado Boulevard by July next year, reducing the number of vehicular traffic lanes on each side from three to two.

There’s a reason why Nogueira has bikes on his mind today: Last week, on Tuesday, April 23, the executive board of the Eagle Rock Chamber of Commerce held a closed session at the Solheim Lutheran Home, where it voted unanimously, 17-0, to oppose the installation of bike lanes on Colorado at the expense of traffic lanes.

Among those who voted against the dedication of an entire traffic lane to bicycles was Bryan Paul, general manager of Eagle Rock Plaza, Nogueira said.

“We’re not saying we don’t want the bikes—we’re saying why give up one lane for them,” Nogueira explains. “This is a big city and the bigger it gets the more people are going to rely on cars.”
The reason the executive board of the Eagle Rock Chamber of Commerce is against dedicated bike lanes is that “we don’t see bike lanes helping business in any shape or form,” Nogueira said, conceding that the only businesses that might benefit would be caf├ęs.

“Will bike lanes slow down traffic?” he asked. “Yes, big time—maybe bumper to bumper. Will the city give us more parking in exchange for bike lanes? No. Will it give us more turning lanes? No.”
The issue of turning lanes might appear to be the newest wrinkle in the simmering bike lanes controversy in Eagle Rock and Highland Park. And on the face of it, it might even seem irrelevant—if not also a distraction from the core issues at hand.

But as Nogueira tells it, turning lanes are inextricably tied to the larger issue of how traffic on the “island” stretch of Colorado between Eagle Rock Boulevard and Townsend, will be impacted by bike lanes.

“Let’s say we have two lanes of traffic and I want to turn left in my truck on Colorado to go to Colombo’s,” says Nogueira. “I have to wait for a break in the fast lane on the other side, while I’m blocking the fast lane on this side.”

Emergency vehicles, too, will be impacted by bike lanes, according to Nogueira. That’s because when an emergency occurs, motorcars are required to pull over to the right—which is going to be difficult because the far right bike lane will be out of bounds to them.

“You’re going to have a traffic jam,” says Nogueira, adding that the spillover of traffic onto Hill Drive (where Nogueira and Chamber Corresponding Secretary Kaye Beckham live) is another concern.

There are safety issues, too—such as the prospect of motorists opening the doors of parked vehicles smack into an oncoming rider, Nogueira pointed out. But the bottom line is: “We have to look at whether bike lanes are going to help us any in business.”

Nogueira doubts bikers are likely to ride all the way from Pasadena, for example, to eat in Eagle Rock restaurants. “Really?” he asks rhetorically, adding: “Come on!”

The best way forward, Nogueira recommends, is to conduct independent studies about the number of bikers who actually use Colorado right now.

“We have cameras, don’t we? Put them out there and see how many bikes go down Colorado,” he says.

Asked how he reconciles the fact that as president of the Eagle Rock Neighborhood Council he voted for bike lanes recently, Nogueira replies: “I did vote on it at the time. Now I’m hearing from my chamber and I’ve got to look at it both ways.”

The other point a lot of folks don’t understand is that there aren’t many people in Eagle Rock who are both residents and business owners like him, Nogueira says.

“How many in TERA or on the neighborhood council have a business and live here?” he asks.
Nogueira said he will soon issue an e-mail blast to all 129 of the Chamber members, informing them of the executive board's decision. Subsequently, he expects the Chamber to write a letter to the Department of Transportation, apprising it of the Chamber's opposition to exculsive bike lanes.
Because the Chamber’s vote was in closed sessions, details are of course unavailable. Meanwhile, there are theories as to what might have transpired behind those closed doors.

“I’m glad to hear that the Chamber’s leadership is informing its members of the decision they’ve made on their behalf,” says David Greene, vice president of the Eagle Rock Neighborhood Council.
“In my experience, it's better for these decisions to come from the bottom up—at the Neighborhood Council, for example, we listened to residents and business owners before we voted unanimously to support buffered bike lanes on Colorado.”

Adds Greene: “Our vote reflected the overwhelming support we heard for bike lanes. I'll be interested to hear the reaction of Chamber of Commerce member businesses to their leaders' decree, since I know some are strong bike lane supporters."


I hear the Chamber is really just Kaye Beckham and Michael Nogueira's little fiefdom and that nobody takes it seriously. I also hear that most of the businesses on Colorado aren't even members. And I heard the real reason they oppose bike lanes is that both of them live up on Hill Dr. and don't want more cars going by their houses. So if what I hear is right, Kaye and Michael care more about themselves than doing what is right for Eagle Rock and the Chamber's opposition is really just two people selfishly trying to stop progress.

Monica G

Explain to me how eliminating a car lane, in either direction, causing further traffic congestion, is good for Eagle Rock? I have lived in Highland Park since I was 2 (and E.R. when I was born), and am a regular Eagle Rock commuter, I can tell you that more cars vey for the back streets specifically because of the congestion...a path that the CYCLISTS could easily take. You cannot convert a city that was built AFTER the automobile into a pedestrian/cycling city, no matter how hard you try. And until public transportation even remotely resembles that of other, more (transportation) advanced cities, I don't see much ease as far as traffic congestion is concerned. Cyclists seem to be as myopic as they claim automobile drivers are, and what we need is logical and reasonable COMPROMISE, not "my way or the highway" mentality, as seems to be the trend where bike lanes are concerned. Maybe if cyclists were forced to register and license their "vehicles" we might have more revenue to pay for transportation improvements.

Josef Bray-Ali

"Explain to me how eliminating a car lane, in either direction, causing further traffic congestion, is good for Eagle Rock?"
Ask Glendale and Pasadena. They both have only four car lanes and their stretches of roads seem to be doing pretty well.
"You cannot convert a city that was built AFTER the automobile into a pedestrian/cycling city, no matter how hard you try."
Interesting. You do know that this area is a street car suburb, right? And if we're going to believe your theory, then we're also going to have to throw out a lot of evidence from cities across the globe that have made the transition away from total auto domination.
The other stuff you have written is adding a layer of emotion that doesn't really prove your point on way or another.

Scott Martin-Rowe

The Chamber of Commerce represents the interests of commerce in Eagle Rock, not the majority of people who live here. Most people that I talk to - yes, who live in Eagle Rock - think that bike lanes are a great idea. Slowing down Colorado and developing more business that most people would be attracted to (i.e. not more massage parlors) will be a win-win for everyone. It's a shame that the ER Chamber of Commerce is too short-sighted to see how this could be a great move.

Mark Charles

Wow. the Chamber is out of touch with what the local residents want to see happen regarding the bike lanes. I attended both the CD14 outreach and the ERNC meeting. At both meeting there was a ground swell of support. The Chamber's vote seems to be a baby with the bathwater situation. Why not make recommendations for additional changes rather than simply vote it down? The comment about being a business owner and a resident comes off as being a little high and mighty. Dear Chamber members, I live in Eagle Rock and spend thousands of dollars in the community each year. You will likely see more of my money when the bike lanes go in. As well, my wife and I will have ridden our bikes and not be taking up a much coveted parking space near your business. Furthermore, when I am traveling in the number one lane at 45 miles per hour with all the other cars in 3 lanes of traffic, it is difficult for me to act upon an impulsive purchase at one of your many shops. You have all made a poor decision.


“Let’s say we have two lanes of traffic and I want to turn left in my truck on Colorado to go to Colombo’s,” says Nogueira. “I have to wait for a break in the fast lane on the other side, while I’m blocking the fast lane on this side.” Um, newsflash: THERE IS NO "FAST LANE" ON COLORADO BOULEVARD, NOR SHOULD THERE BE. Views like this--that Colorado is supposed to function as a freeway--is precisely why we need a more bike- and pedestrian-friendly boulevard. Sheesh. For the record, I am a car-driving Eagle Rock resident who does not own a bike, and I find these arguments against the bike lanes totally absurd.

Andrew Hindes

Great point, HCL. And the limited number of lanes and slower traffic on the main drag hasn't hurt businesses in Montrose or Alhambra.


As an opponent of bike lanes, but also someone who believes they are coming regardless of whats best, I must say that the unanimous chamber vote against the bike lanes signifies to me that they are attempting to get the attention of Huizar, not to stop the lanes from being installed, but rather to get a more comprehensive, larger budgeted plan to be committed to by the city. And one might ask, why would this matter more than the view of the Neighborhood Council's vote? First, the business community are higher priority stakeholders in the eyes of the elected officials because they invest money in the community, providing jobs and services, and they generate revenue for the city. Business people also support local candidates with greater veracity, both financially and influentially, come election time.(Remember only 16% of Angelenos voted in the recent primary) The average bike lane supporter probably has an ideal vision for Colorado blvd, but the truth is they will accept any plan that includes car lane reduction and a bike lane addition because its a good first step, especially with limited city resources. But for the folks who put their blood, sweat, and money into ER for years, no deal is better than a bad deal, especially if they can use their collective influence to push the city for a good deal. And delaying this bike plan might be in the best interest of bike lane supporters, with home values on the rise, Colorado could end up better farther down the road.

John Goldfarb

How is Colorado going to end up better farther down the road? You refer to a "more comprehensive, larger budgeted plan to be committed to by the city;" what kind of plan would this be? Bike lanes are the only plan being offered and only involve paint, and the city apparently can't even afford to mow down the weeds sprouting knee-high in every median island along Colorado lately.


If you follow the real estate market, prices are starting to go up all over los angeles, which leads to more city revenue. A few years from now, with enriched city coffers and better financial management, and/or federal grant monies, Colorado Blvd might be able to get a more thought out, better designed roadway, instead of a simple lane reduction and re-striping with a bike lane. Personally, I've never seen a detailed rendition of the full length of bike paths along Colorado(What is being voted on). I usually see a map indicating streets that will get bike lanes, or a crappy diagram of a tiny stretch of road most similar to Colorado East of ER Blvd. But Colorado is not uniform from the 2 fwy to Ave 64. Reducing Colorado to two lanes does not have to be a disaster, but cars turning on to and off of Colorado could create problems, its actually an issue already. One of the worst points along Colorado is where the 3 lane street reduces to 2 lanes just East of Townsend, and to create a perfect storm, the clusterf*ck that is the Traders Joes' parking lot, with cars lined up on Colorado waiting to turn in, others turning out, at the exact point of the roadway shrinking to 2 lanes. I have yet to see a bike lane proposal for this stretch of Colorado, and continuing on East where its 2 lanes currently, not 3. Take Back The Blvd may be unrealistic due to budget restraints, but at least it tried to address issues beyond installing bike lanes without regard to negative impacts.

Josef Bray-Ali

If that were the case, it would be awesome. Eagle Rock needs WAY more than some bike lanes. It is a pretty hostile place to walk, and I think it has lost out to Glendale and Burbank since the freeway got put through the area.


Combining bike lanes (and bike riding) with fast moving automobile traffic is horribly dangerous, especially for the biker. Bikers also present hazardous conditions to the auto driver causing them great liability in case an accident occurs. Saner heads prevailed in this instance.

Mark Vallianatos

exactly- that's why we want bike lanes, to slow down traffic so it is less dangerous. The buffered bike lanes will later be turned into protected bike lanes which will make even more people feel comfortable riding.


Kathy makes an interesting observation that a three lane road such as Colorado blvd is a 'fast moving'. That observation is anecdotal, but say if its true, then a neighborhood should make every effort to calm traffic, even just for the benefit of other motorists.
But the reality is that motorists aren't the only ones who use these roads. Pedestrians are woefully forgotten by motorists by such commentors Kathy. I completely agree that we need to address traffic speed, but that's where we part opinions.
Bike lanes provide a buffer for cyclists, and encourage safer driving by reducing the 'freeway effect' by a three lane highway. Two lanes on the other hand are a safer, calming measure. They work in Glendale. They work in Pasadena. Both cities with bigger populations and seem to handle traffic well.


"fast moving traffic" That's relative to slow moving bicycles, not too fast as to be unsafe. Even traveling at speeds slower than the limit is fast moving compared to a bicycle.

Jon Leibowitz

This is actually not true. The street is the safest place for a cyclist, and having a bike lane is a bigger advantage for motorists than it is for cyclists.

Pat Skipper

Finally, someone with half a brain has figured out what a bad idea this is. Tell you what, take an hour of your day and count how many bikes come by on Colorado. At the same time, count the number of buses (which carry a lot of people at one time, obviously). The buses already slow up traffic darting in and out of the third lane. What will the impact be with only two lanes? The bike riders are more than welcome on Hill Drive.

Mark Vallianatos

slowing traffic "darting in and out of the third lane" is a GOOD THING. That will be one of the benefits of adding bike lane. Sorry, bitter people, the days of speeding on colorado like it is a freeway are over. Hurray.

Jon Leibowitz

Hill Drive is a joke and an insult. I don't bike to see your fancy neighborhood's homes and gardening; I tend to have somewhere to go. The climb is not going to be made unless there is a rewarding destination at the top.
As for buses, I find that bus drivers tend to treat the road with more respect and awareness than a great number of motorists. When I'm on a bike I tend to feel a lot safer having a bus behind me, simply because they are professionals in multiple senses of the word. Buses and bicycles both have a net positive effect on reducing congestion from roads, shouldn't this be encouraged? Or would you rather have everyone inside a car contributing further to the problem being discussed?

Jon Leibowitz

And to further illustrate the point I was trying to make about slowing traffic, what it would take to transport 60 people by car, bus and bicycle: http://farm4.staticflickr.com/3578/3399179623_02886c8b55_z.jpg?zz=1

Andrew Hindes

It's true, Pat, there aren't many bike riders on Colorado. And that's the point The idea behind bike lanes is to encourage bike riding by making it safer--giving riders more room and slowing traffic. When I ride my bike I avoid Colorado at all costs because most drivers think they are in what Mr. Nogueira calls the "fast lane." That would change If traffic flow was reduced and a bike lane was added. And for the record, when I'm on my bike I'm more likely to frequent Eagle Rock businesses--once I'm in my car it's easier to go further afield.

Josef Bray-Ali

I don't understand this argument about there not being enough bike riders on the streets. We put in curb ramps but I don't see wheelchair riders everywhere. I see sidewalks empty - why are we paving those in the first place?
There are a lot of good reasons for a city to install bike lanes. Going into the in this thread is going to take too long and it won't move the discussion forward.
Bike lanes are about providing a viable option for people to safely ride around the neighborhood - and that is pretty much it. If they are done properly more people will use them - and that is well supported by evidence from LA and other cities across the US and across the world.

Pat Skipper

sorry guys, but that's not how planning is done. you build something like a bike lane to respond to need, to solve a problem. if there are so few bikers, there is no problem to fix. you don't create a bike lane with the idea that people will maybe use it.
i'm quite aware of where the buses will be if were take away their lanes. they will be in the number 2 lane, doing what they should be doing: loading and unloading while everyone tries to squeeze down to one lane. we don't have time for that bs to accommodate the very few people on bikes.
if the goal is to slow traffic down, put a cop on colorado once a week. the revenues would more than pay the salary. building a bike lane to control the speed limit is a ludicrous argument.

Tim Ryder

Michael Nogueira, you're my hero!!!

Ruben Navarro

The percentage of people who use bicycles as their mode of transportation in and around the greater LA area is minute compared to the percentage of automobiles. I'm usually not a betting man but this is one bet I would make. Colorado isn't pedestrian friendly? That's an absurd statement. Most motorist would just gravitate to the center lane to avoid getting too close to bikers. I think some people are trying to turn Eagle Rock into another Portland.

Mark Vallianatos

Some people are trying to turn Eagle Rock into a safe pleasant place to walk and bike. You want it to be dangerous, loud, run-down, empty?


Interesting……the article started with “It’s a little past 5 p.m. on Thursday and Eagle Rock Chamber of Commerce President Michael Nogueira is preparing to go home after a hard day’s work at Sir Michael’s, his party rentals business on Eagle Rock Boulevard.”
Just about two hours later, a little past 7pm I was riding home Westbound on Colorado, “by Eagle Vista” when at least two vehicles flew by me at least twice my speed…..and I was already at 25mph. And, one of the drivers actually thought it was cool to test his driving skills to see how close he could get to me – JERK! On top of that, he/she blew the light at Loleta! Good thing it not was during school hours.
As a consumer of Eagle Rock businesses, cyclist, homeowner, and motorist (and I drive plenty), the speeds on Colorado are a serious problem. It’s a real shame I don't feel safe riding my bike in my own neighborhood!!!


A cynic might believe that the voice of a business organization might have a more powerful voice in the community. The truth is, this might happen. If the general citizen believes in bike lanes, they need to stand up and voice their opinion yet again. If the President of ERNC, can suddenly change his mind, then pro bike lane supporters need to remind local elected officials to listen to ER. I think there is a big vote for bike lanes despite some of the comments already expressed here.
Look at the senators who voted against more gun control background checks. Their popularity is now dropping because they didn't listen to their voters, but instead listened to the NRA. Mistake.
I suggest that we all lobby our elected officials if you think bike lanes are needed and don't want business interests to have the final say.
Bike lanes are a good thing.


I've said it before, I'll say it again. Let's have a referendum and vote on it and let the majority prevail. Why is this not being pursued? The endless debates are unproductive and opinions from various groups mean little.
This is something that will affect everyone in Eagle Rock and we should be allowed to vote on it. Not the fake stakeholders, but actual residents and people who own businesses here.
Why is this idea a problem?


No need for a referendum. Just block the right lane on one side of Colorado Blvd for 2 days and observe traffic. I bet you won't see traffic jams, just slower moving traffic that travels normal speed. If I'm wrong? Then we don't spend money on paint and keep our freeway boulevard. I'd be disappointed but will continue riding my bicycle.


We're kinda past the need/not need debate and no evidence seems acceptable to either side of the issue. I'd say a simple vote would solve the problem in a stroke. Is that un-American or something?

Josef Bray-Ali

Noguiera brings up the emergency vehicle access red herring in this article and I'd like to address that.
First, bike lane or no bike lane, if there is an emergency vehicle coming down the road all road users are obliged to get out of the way and move to the right. Bike riders included.
Car drivers can move into the bike lanes in these scenarios - and I have been on Venice Blvd. riding to the Westside and on other bike lanes when a cop car or an ambulance blow by. Everyone moves to the right and the cars proceed.
Here is where this argument against lanes falls apart: a bike lane does not have an invisible force field across it. It actually provides relatively unoccupied road space for cars to move into when an emergency vehicle is approaching. If there are cyclists, they lean against parked cars or get on the sidewalk (or against the curb). Motorists move into the bike lane.
In the current setup, there is no space for an emergency vehicle to go if all three lanes are blocked with cars! The emergency vehicles will have a better chance of squeezing through with a bike lane.
I hope this addresses this anti-bike lane argument.

True Freedom

Chamber of Commerce, hear this:
My family will not patronize any business on Colorado in Eagle Rock until the speed issue is fixed.
Last nite, my wife picked me up from work so we could go out to dinner. We headed to a restaurant on Colorado. The drivers driving well over the speed limit, the aggressive weaving to get somewhere, etc.. made slowing for a parking space and parallel parking an awful experience.
Many people are using Colorado as an alternative to the freeway, and expect to travel at high speeds. They need to use the freeway. That's why it's there.
I'd estimate 95% of all the cars I saw at that hour weren't using Colorado for shopping. They were using Colorado for Eagle Rock cut-thru on their way to Glendale or else where.
Chamber of Commerce, I'd be willing to bet you'd see better business if you're able to slow traffic on Colorado.
Colorado in the heart of Pasadena has an average speed of about 15mph. People don't use it for cutting cross town... They use it for access to shopping. Some will argue that Pasadena has alternate streets to carry the cross-town traffic. This is true, but so does Eagle Rock: the 134
Get Colorado under control

True Freedom

and let me add, that the walk from where we eventually parked our car to the restaurant was very unpleasant as well.
The road and engine noise (and smell) of cars zipping by at 45mph create a poor pedestrian environment.
Perhaps if cars were a bit further from the sidewalk (because of a bike lane) and were travelling much slower (25-30mph), I would actually park and walk to more than one shop on Colorado.
Big thumbs down on my Eagle Rock shopping experience.


I am sad the Chamber of Commerce voted to prioritize the conveniences of today over the well-being of the future of Eagle Rock. Perhaps like Republicans not favoring gay marriage until they find out they have a gay relative, the members of the Chamber of Commerce won't favor bike lanes until they've had a loved one hurt or injured in a crash on Colorado Blvd.
I have loved ones that bicycle on Colorado Boulevard– because it's good for their health, good for the environment and in some cases because they can't afford to travel by any other means and arrive at their destination in a timely manner. I want my friends and family to be safe on Colorado Boulevard. I want everyone to be safe regardless of their mode of travel and that is why I support bike lanes.
Map data © OpenStreetMap contributors, CC-BY-SA