A Look at Eagle Rock’s Relationship with Parking

A recurring complaint about Colorado Boulevard is that the street does not provide enough parking. This may be a valid concern, but when we gain parking we usually have to lose something in exchange. Walkability, attractive store fronts, lively sidewalks…

Perhaps the three most known examples of where parking has been gained in Eagle Rock, the story has not been pretty.

First lets recall the event considered to have sparked the formation of The Eagle Rock Association, April 1st 1986:

“In response to the threatened destruction of the historic business buildings at the corner of Townsend and Colorado. Kathleen Aberman stands on the building’s roof in an attempt to ward off the surprise demolition by the owner.” – Eagle Rock Historic Society

In the middle right is the building Aberman tried to rescue. Photo credit: Metro Library and Archive

Another two views of the building

The building in the center of the picture is the one that was destroyed. Image credit: Eagle Rock by Eric Warren

A close up of the building. Image credit: Eagle Rock by Eric Warren

Aberman was unsuccessful in protecting the historic building at the intersection of Townsend Avenue and Colorado Boulevard. The building was demolished and replaced by a strip mall, which has close to 30 parking spaces.

Today the location looks like this

Photo credit: Google Maps

Was it worth it? Sure there’s enough parking now, but we lost a beautiful structure. On any given day the parking lot sits half empty and has made the corner a rather unambitious and undesirable. When visitors rave about destinations in our neighborhood, never have I heard anyone cite this structure as particularly attractive. Locals never brag about the aesthetics or value of this structure.

More often, visitors and locals alike appreciate, and enjoy locations with historic buildings that predate parking demand. Like the building now famous for housing Swork

Photo credit: UrbanPhotoAdventures

or the charming building that prominently features The Coffee Table

Photo credit: Britta Gustafson

Another bitter, well-known tale in which the community gained parking takes place at the intersection of Eagle Rock Boulevard and Colorado Boulevard

“More than 20,000 signatures were collected to help the city understand the value Eagle Rock places on its history and culture. Many people went to city hall meetings and spoke to the possibilities of compromises that could be worked to meet everyone’s goals. That streamline moderne building, was the flagship store for the Shopping Bag Grocery chain. And had a place in La’s history. But the LA Conservancy will tell you now, as they told us back when they offered, pro bono, all the help they could to try to get the building saved, that Los Angeles governmental agencies do not often work for the citizens and smaller communities of our city.

And so we as a community lost the possibility of having the Walgreens rehab and beautify our history, and the 14,000 sq. ft. building (pretty much the exact size of the one they built) was destroyed.” – Rebecca Niederlander

Niederlander describes the loss of a building located in the commercial center of Eagle Rock. We lost this

The Shopping Bag Building. Image Credit: Eagle Rock by Eric Warren

And Eagle Rock gained this

Photo credit: Google Maps

Over 50 parking spaces and structures that have little aesthetic value, originality and historic merit– soulless faux mission style architecture.

Lastly, one of the most iconic buildings of Eagle Rock’s past was again lost in the name of parking in the heart of Eagle Rock.

Security Bank Building. Image credit: Eagle Rock by Eric Warren

More pictures of the beautiful building

Picture credit: Metro Library and Archive

Picture credit: Metro Library and Archive

The building has since been replaced with this

Same corner that once featured the Security Bank Building. Picture credit: Google Maps

The corner has since been slightly cleaned up, now housing a Chase Bank, but the building is nowhere near as beautiful or valuable to the community. The lot has over 20 parking spaces.

At what point will Eagle Rock have enough parking? How many more historic buildings need to be destroyed before those that demand more parking are appeased?

Proponents for parking argue that it will benefit the local businesses from the added parking. This may be partially true but when I think of successful Eagle Rock businesses, there seems to be little correlation with amount of parking. Consider businesses like Casa Bianca, The Coffee Table, Brownstone Pizzeria– are any of these businesses successful because of the parking they provide? None of them provide any special parking lots for their customers, simply relying on curbside parking. Businesses like Oinkster provide many parking spaces (the property has about 20 parking spaces) though I don’t think parking has been the sole or primary reason for its success.

In a community like Eagle Rock, which is very walkable, and proud, with locally supported businesses it seems that a businesses’ success is measured by how valuable it is to the community, not by how many parking spaces it provides.

Some Thoughts on Outdated Bikeway Designs

(This is a non-Eagle Rock specific post mostly consisting of thoughts on bicycle infrastructure design standards that dictate bikeway design in Los Angeles)

When bicycling on the streets of Los Angeles I am expected to ‘share the road’ with motorists. On quiet residential streets this is rarely an issue, cars seldom go above 20 miles per hour. But even on residential streets there is the occasional pressure to speed up or move aside when a motor vehicle approaches from behind. However, residential streets are pretty manageable and subjectively safe for myself, and the many people I see who simply enjoy to go for a ride around the block. Intersections are not an issue either as residential streets are usually narrow with little traffic.

However, the comfort utilitarian and recreational bicyclists feel on residential streets quickly disappears when traveling on major, commercial streets. One of the biggest hindrances to people choosing the bicycle for travel is how dangerous larger streets with greater amounts of traffic feel.

Now I am an everyday bicyclist and I have no problem negotiating with motor vehicle traffic, making left turns like a motor vehicle. I expect motorists to needlessly discriminate me by shouting, honking, and telling me to get out of the way. But this is not the reality I want to experience. When traveling by bicycle I’d prefer to be separated from motor vehicles traveling over 20 miles per hour;I do not want to breathe in exhaust, feel cars zoom by, or put up with the noise pollution and increasingly distracted drivers. And I’m not the only one who feels this way, there are many more who cite their number one reason for not bicycling more often being how unsafe and unpleasant conditions are, being forced to mix with motorized traffic to go to the grocery store, a friend’s house, or local restaurant.

So what is being done to address the concerns of the many people who want to get on their bicycles but don’t? Well, here locally in Los Angeles the city has a Bicycle Master Plan which seeks to create a 1,600 mile network of bicycle facilities over the course of the next 30 years. And in 30 years the city hopes to have bicycling make up 5% of the city’s traffic.

Almost half, 700 miles, of the 1,600 miles of bicycle facilities will be on the a backbone network which will consist of the heavy traffic streets many are currently afraid of. And what will the facilities on these major streets look like? Currently bike facility designs are largely dictated by: The American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO); California Highway Design Manual (CHDM); and the California Manual of Unified Traffic Control Devices (CAMUTCD). What do these manuals have to offer?

Facilities offered in AASHTO and CAHDM are:

• Class I Bike Path: Completely separated right-of-way for exclusive use by bicycles and pedestrians
• Class II Bike Lane: Provides a striped line for one-way bicycle travel on a street or highway
• Class III Bike Route: Provides shared use with pedestrians or motor vehicle travel

It is well known that the majority of people will refuse to start bicycling unless safe, separate facilities are provided. My own anecdotal evidence of this consists of asking my non-bicycling friends, my grandfather, my sister and mother. I also observe where people do cycle most– bike paths. Admittedly the majority of users on LA’s bike paths are recreational riders but a few points can perhaps explain why: Current bike paths are largely isolated and are difficult to integrate into any kind of travel other than recreational; current bike paths are often linear, uninterrupted paths, optimizing them for recreational travel; the facilities feel safe enough to use for recreational purposes (unlike the streets closer to where the bike path users live).

So what does the CAHDM say about providing bicycle facilities?

“Pavement markings alone will not measurably enhance bicycling.”

The CAHDM admits that mere painted bike lanes are not too effective in enhancing bicycling. While painted bike lanes not physically separated from motorized traffic increase bicycling marginally and enhance the experience a little bit, they are unsatisfactory to the majority of people. The existing bike lanes throughout Los Angeles demonstrate this very well. So perhaps we could provide bike paths adjacent to motorized traffic to enhance the bicycling experience and get more people riding? After all, bike paths are the most desired kinds of infrastructure among non bicyclists and they are the most utilized pieces of bike infrastructure that do exist despite their lack of accessibility to the majority of people. Well, not according to the CAHDM

“Bike paths immediately adjacent to streets and highways are not recommended. They should not be considered a substitute for the street, because many bicyclists will find it less convenient to ride on these types of facilities as compared with the street, particularly for utility trips”

The reasoning for not providing bike paths adjacent to streets is in complete contradiction to the reality. Many potential bicyclists would find bike paths adjacent to streets more convenient (and safe, and pleasant) than mixing with motorized traffic. One of the greatest concerns people have is lack of safety from being required to mix with motorized traffic. Adjacent bike paths would reduce moments required to mix with motorized traffic to intersections and driveways.

Alright, so maybe no bike paths adjacent to streets. Perhaps bike lanes can be placed between the curb and parked cars to make facilities that feel safe enough for everyone? I frequently hear this as a solution from people who would like to cycle more or at all but currently don’t. The CAHDM doesn’t think so…

“Bike lanes shall not be placed between the parking area and the curb. Such facilities increase the conflict between bicyclists and opening car doors and reduce visibility at intersections. Also, they prevent bicyclists from leaving the bike lane to turn left and cannot be effectively maintained.”

Again, the reasoning surprises me. Given the average number of people traveling in a car is less than 2, bicyclists are more likely to have conflict with car doors opening from the driver’s side, where bike lanes are currently placed. As for reducing visibility at intersections, parking is seldom allowed close to intersections for this very reason– visibility. Additionally motorists already have to look for pedestrians on their right-hand side, this should not make it difficult for motorists to look for bicyclists at intersections if parking is not permitted and the potential pedestrians need to be taken into consideration already. Left-turns are certainly not an issue for pedestrians, why would a bike lane between the curb and parked cars be much different? A similar motion can be made by bicyclists. In fact this is the solution often offered  in the Netherlands and Denmark where bicycle facilities are placed between the curb and parked cars.

Example of left-turn for bicyclists in Copenhagen, Denmark. Credit: Between Yellow and Blue

Example of how cyclists make lefts in the Netherlands. Credit: Mark Wagenbuur

Cyclists are hardly ‘restricted’ when placed between the curb and parked cars if the facilities are engineered properly like in the Netherlands and Denmark, the countries with the highest levels of bike usage in the western world. Additionally, just as there are mid-block crossings for pedestrians, the same could be provided to bicyclists if placed between parked cars and the curb, arguably allowing greater freedom of movement than when cyclists are forced to use the same lanes as motor vehicle traffic where mid-block U-turns are often not possible or allowed.

So how are intersections to be handled according to the CAHDM? Here is more, general discussion of intersections.

“Most auto/bicycle accidents occur at intersections. For this reason, bikeway design at intersections should be accomplished in a manner that will minimize confusion by motorists and bicyclists and will permit both to operate in accordance with the normal rules of the road.”

This sounds good, but the reality is that there is ZERO evidence of intersections in Los Angeles and much of California where any thought has been made to minimize confusion by motorists and bicyclists. In fact, the CAHDM at current suggests two ways for bicyclists to make left turns at intersections, with or without bicycle infrastructure.

“A prevalent type of accident involves straight-through bicycle traffic and right-turning motorists. Left turning bicyclists also have problems as the bike lane is on the right side of the street and bicyclists have to cross the path of cars traveling in both directions. Some bicyclists are proficient enough to merge across one or more lanes of traffic to use the inside lane or left-turn lane. However, there are many who do not feel comfortable making this maneuver. They have the option of making a two-legged eft turn by riding along a course similar to that followed by pedestrians.”

The CAHDM shares two ways for bicyclists to make left turns. Knowing there is inconsistency in how bicyclists make left turns seems it would INCREASE confusion. Credit: CAHDM

The above excerpt is interesting for a couple reasons, it admits that there is trouble with through cyclists and right turning motorists as well with cyclists turning left. The first problem, through cyclists conflicting with right turning motorists has already been addressed in the Netherlands and Denmark, both have made efforts to mitigate this type of conflict. If safety was the highest priority, the issue could be dealt with by reducing speeds at intersections by requiring a sharper turn from motorists through design as is seen in the Netherlands. It could also be dealt with altogether by having separate signal phases for through cyclists and right turning motorists.

The second problem, that of the left turn, the Highway Design Manual admits that most people would rather not have to cross one, two, or some cases three lanes of motor vehicle traffic to make a left turn like a motorist, especially when speeds are between 30mph and 50pm as they are on Colorado Boulevard in Eagle Rock. Yet despite knowing the majority of people would prefer to make a two-legged left similar to pedestrian design, seldom have intersections in California been designed to accommodate, encourage, or guide this style of movement. Interestingly, the diagram from the CAHDM showing the two-legged left displays a movement very similar to the diagram showing a left turn for cyclists in Copenhagen and it would only require paint on the ground to mimic this treatment.

The Danish and the Dutch have addressed the concerns the CAHDM has with bicycle facilities that are separate from motorized traffic for more than 3 decades. Bicyclists in Denmark and the Netherlands are the safest in the world, they are frequently separated from motorized traffic, and have no trouble making left turns.

It is time to raise the bar for bicycle infrastructure design in California. We know what will create more bicyclists, separated facilities. We know how the majority would be comfortable making left turns, it is written in our state Highway Design Manual. There are several places around the world (and increasingly here in the United States and in other cities in California) to look for design solutions yet we do zero to accommodate, encourage, or pursue this.

Bicycle Friendly Alternative to Colorado Boulevard

Bicycling in Eagle Rock is pleasant, for the most part. However, to reach the majority of destinations in our town we often have to negotiate with loud zooming cars on Colorado Boulevard, making bicycling less attractive when considering how to get somewhere.

Thankfully there is a bicycle friendly street that can serve as an alternative to Colorado Boulevard but it is perhaps not so well known. This alternative is Las Flores Drive.

Many Eagle Rock residents know that Hill Drive roughly parallels Colorado Boulevard, but the street meanders and, as its name implies, has hills. The conditions on Hill Drive make it not such a bike friendly route for the everyday person looking for a relaxing, laid-back bicycle ride. For those looking to ride a bicycle for small trips in the neighborhood Las Flores is the best way to avoid cycling on Colorado Boulevard and to avoid hills.

Las Flores is a little disjointed, but otherwise serves as a perfectly good alternative to Colorado Boulevard for casual bicyclists as it is a relatively calm, flat and low traffic route. Where Las Flores interrupts between Eagle Rock Boulevard and Maywood Avenue you can make a small jog onto Hill Drive for a block and continue back on Las Flores. Below is a Google Maps image showing Colorado Boulevard represented with a red line and the Las Flores alternative I have come to use in blue.

As you may notice, you can still reach a considerable amount of destinations by using Las Flores rather than Colorado Boulevard. From the Eagle Rock Plaza to Trader Joe’s and everything in between – still reachable – requiring only minimal interaction on Colorado Boulevard when arriving at your destination and saving the casual bicyclist a lot of stress.

According to Google Maps taking Las Flores doesn’t add terribly much distance to one’s journey; only half a mile more if you’re traveling the entire Las Flores route to avoid Colorado Boulevard. On a bicycle an extra half mile is negligible and it is unlikely one would traverse Las Flores from Townsend Avenue to Sumner Avenue for the majority of their journeys anyway.  In my experience any added distance taking Las Flores over Colorado Boulevard  is well worth it to not having to contend with intimidating conditions on our main street.

The next time you need to run a small errand which you would typically make by driving on Colorado Boulevard, consider cycling on Las Flores– it really is quite nice, and relaxing. And given the price of gas these days, being able to choose the bicycle for small trips could be a nice way to save a few bucks.

A Decade of Crashes Along Colorado Boulevard

Take Back The Boulevard – the initiative that has sparked my interest in studying the conditions along Colorado Boulevard in Eagle Rock – is an opportunity for us to improve conditions along our main street regardless of findings in neighboring cities.

However, if one really wants a quick comparison one can look to a map that shows every road fatality between 2001 and 2009 in the entire United States. This map includes road fatalities along Colorado as the street runs through Glendale, Eagle Rock and Pasadena. Not the most solid of data to draw conclusions but it indicates what many suspect– Eagle Rock’s portion of Colorado Boulevard has been deadlier than it is in our neighboring cities where the street is only two lanes in each direction according to nearly a decade of records. Eagle Rock’s bit of Colorado Boulevard saw more deaths than Pasadena’s portion despite spanning a short distance and at about the same distance as Glendale’s portion of the street yet with more deaths. While one cannot speculate too much, it would not seem far fetched if  the increased number of deaths in Eagle Rock are partially the result of conditions which allow for greater speeds (and higher speeds are more likely to result in death in the event of a crash).

But I hesitate to draw a comparison between Eagle Rock and its neighbors if for no other reason than the fact that we shouldn’t have to justify Take Back The Boulevard due to circumstances in Glendale or Pasadena. If we, as a community, want to change our portion of the street because we are dissatisfied with the dangers and unpleasant nature Colorado presents, that should be enough reason to call for a safer, friendly street.

And one element of Take Back The Boulevard that attempts to make Colorado safer and more pleasant is reducing the number of through traffic lanes, a ‘road diet’ as they are frequently called. Road diets have been proven to increase safety for all users (read about it from the U.S Department of Transportation here or from the LA Department of Transportation Bicycle Blog here) so it is unlikely that a reduction in lanes on Colorado Boulevard in Eagle Rock would be any different. In fact, the U.S. Department of Transportation Federal Highway Administration considers road diets a Proven Safety Countermeasure.

(Source: U.S. Department of Transportation Federal Highway Administration)

In addition to the increased safety, often these lane reductions result in a more pleasant atmosphere. A local road diet Eagle Rock residents may be familiar with is one that was implemented along York Boulevard between Eagle Rock Boulevard and Avenue 54. This portion of street was reduced from two lanes in each direction to one lane in each direction with a center turning lane. Since this portion of York Boulevard was transformed the street seems to have become a lot more inviting, and less stressful, to the local neighbors and visitors alike.

Anyway, it seems Eagle Rock has little to lose should Colorado Boulevard undergo a road diet, especially given the evidence that shows road diets provide many benefits. Regardless of what Take Back The Boulevard may result in, it may be beneficial to reflect on the real, current conditions along Colorado. Here is a look at a decade of crashes from the year 2000 to 2010.

The Year 2000

Each blue marker represents a collision.

42 crashes

56 injuries

Primary Causes of Crashes:Failure to Yield Right-of-Way( 11 times); Unsafe Speed (10 times); Running Stop Sign or Red Signal (6 times)

Top Crash Intersections: Eagledale Avenue (5 crashes); Ellenwood Drive (5 crashes); Lockhaven Avenue (3 crashes)

The Year 2001

Each blue marker represents a collision.

52 crashes

52 injuries

Primary Causes of Crashes: Failure to Yield Right-of-Way (15 times); Unsafe Speed (12 times); Running Stop Sign or Red Signal (8 times)

Top Crash Intersections: Sierra Villa Dr ( 7 crashes); Dahlia Dr (4 crashes); Vincent Ave/ Mt. Royal/ Glen Iris Ave/ College View Ave (3 crashes)

The Year 2002*

Each green marker represents a collision.

*For this year I looked at raw data which made locating Primary Causes and Injuries difficult, I may update the post later with that information.

57 crashes

Top Crash Intersections:Ellenwood Drive (6 crashes); Eagledale Avenue (6 crashes); Townsend Avenue (5 crashes)

The Year 2003

Each yellow marker represents a collision.

50 crashes

48 injuries

Primary Cause of Crashes: Unsafe Speed (11 times); Failure to Yield Right-of-Way (10 times); “Other Improper Driver” (7 times)

Top Crash intersection: Townsend Avenue (7 crashes); Sierra Villa Drive (6 crashes); Lockhaven Avenue (5 crashes)

The Year 2004

Each pink marker represents a collision.

56 crashes

53 injuries

Primary Cause of Crashes: Unsafe Speed (14 times); Failure to Yield Right-of-Way (10 times); Running Stop Sign or Red Signal and “Not Driver” (6 times)

Top Crash Intersections: Ellenwood Drive (9 crashes); Eagle Rock Boulevard (5 crashes); Broadway and Eagledale Avenue (4 crashes each)

The Year 2005

Each red marker represents a collision.

49 crashes

47 injuries

Primary Causes of Crashes: Failure to Yield Right-of-Way (14 times); Unsafe Speed (12 times); Running Stop Sign or Red Signal (6 times)

Top Crash Intersections: Sierra Villa Drive (5 crashes); Eagledale Avenue, Argus Drive and Townsend Avenue (4 crashes each); Caspar Avenue, Eagle Rock Boulevard, and Lockhaven Avenue (3 crashes each)

The Year 2006

Each green marker represents a collision.

52 crashes

56 injuries

2 deaths

Primary Causes of Crashes: Unsafe Speed (16 times);  Failure to Yield Right-of-Way (14 times); Running Stop Sign or Red Signal and Improper Turn (each 4 times)

Top Crash Intersections: North Figueroa Street (6 crashes); Lockhaven Avenue, Eagle Rock Boulevard (5 crashes each); Sierra Villa Drive (4 crashes)

The Year 2007

Each red marker represents a collision.

53 crashes

60 injuries

Primary Causes of Crashes: Unsafe Speed (15 times); Failure to Yield Right-of-Way (14 times); Running Stop Sign or Red Signal (6 times)

Top Crash Intersections: North Figueroa Street (4 crashes); Eagledale Avenue, Lockhaven Avenue, Sierra Villa Drive, College View Avenue, Ellenwood Drive, Highland View Avenue, and Eagle Vista Drive (all with 3 crashes each); Live Oak View, El Rio Avenue, Eagle Rock Boulevard, Vincent Avenue, Townsend Avenue, Mount Helena Avenue, and Los Robles Street (all with 2 crashes each)

The Year 2008

Each purple marker represents a collision.

55 crashes

55 injuries

5 deaths

Primary Causes of Crashes: Failure to Yield Right-of-Way (16 times); Unsafe Speed (14 times); Lane Change and Running Stop Sign or Red Signal (each 4 times)

Top Crash Intersections: Eagle Rock Boulevard and Sierra Villa Drive (4 crashes each); Eagledale Avenue, Broadway, Highland View Avenue, Townsend Avenue, and North Figueroa Street (3 crashes each); Linda Rosa Avenue, Loleta Avenue, Floristan Avenue, Dahlia Drive, Vincent Avenue, Argus Drive, Caspar Avenue, Ellenwood Drive, and Lockhaven Avenue (all 2 crashes each).

The Year 2009

Each red marker represents a collision.

57 crashes

63 injuries

Primary Causes of Crashes: Unsafe Speed (15 times); Failure to Yield Right-of-Way (14 times); Running Stop Sign or Red Signal and Improper Turn (each 5 times)

Top Crash Intersections: Eagle Rock Boulevard (9 crashes); Townsend Avenue (6 crashes); Sierra Villa Drive and Eagledale Avenue (4 crashes each)

The Year 2010

Each red marker represents a collision.

41 crashes

 46 injuries

Primary Causes of Crashes: Failure to Yield Right-of-Way and Unsafe Speed (each 11 times); Running Stop Sign or Red Signal (5 times); Lane Change and Following Too Close (each 4 times)

Top Crash Intersections: Eagle Rock Boulevard, College View Avenue and Sierra Villa Drive (4 crashes each); Hermosa Avenue (3 crashes); Eagledale Avenue, Lockhaven Avenue, Ellenwood Drive, El Rio Avenue, Highland View Avenue, Mount Royal Avenue, Townsend Avenue, Loleta Avenue, North Figueroa Street (all 2 crashes each)

As one can see, it is not one isolated year that was dangerous along Colorado Boulevard. And while there were intersections that had more crashes than others, hardly any part of Colorado Boulevard was ever collision free.

*This post has been ‘in the making’ for a couple weeks now. After seeing Biking In LA and Eastsider publish similar style posts I decided to push myself and finally get this finished

** This post does not include collisions that went unreported or where Colorado Boulevard was the secondary street of collisions (for example: if a crash occurred on Ellenwood Drive and Colorado Boulevard but the primary street was Ellenwood, that crash is not included in this data)

Preliminary Findings of Crashes Along Colorado Boulevard

The initiative Take Back The Boulevard, which seeks to calm traffic and produce a safe, pleasant atmosphere along Colorado Boulevard has received a bit of backlash in the local newspaper Boulevard Sentinel. While it would seem efforts to make a street safer and more pleasant is hardly something to oppose, there are concerns that the initiative may result in a ‘traffic nightmare’, be bad for local businesses, or even make the street less safe.

Much of this opposition relies on anecdotal observations and speculation about how traffic operates with few facts and little evidence. As a supporter of the efforts to calm traffic on Colorado Boulevard I want to make the case to support the initiative with real facts, evidence, and bringing to light the perspective of vulnerable street users (pedestrians, and cyclists).

One of the first places I’ve gone to for information is the Statewide Integrated Traffic Records System (SWITRS) where one can request crash information. The idea to calm traffic along Colorado Boulevard did not come out of nowhere, there are compelling reasons to do so and part of it is that Colorado is simply unsafe.

I recently received records from SWITRS and in the year 2000 alone there were 42 crashes along Eagle Rock’s bit of Colorado Boulevard, with 84 people (drivers, passengers, bicyclists, pedestrians) involved and resulting in 56 injuries. 11 of these crashes occurred directly adjacent to freeway entrance/exit ramps (10 crashes by the 2 freeway and 1 crash by the 134 freeway). Five crashes occurred at the intersection of Colorado Boulevard and Ellenwood Drive, this was the most number of crashes along any single intersection. Seven crashes occurred on Colorado Boulevard between Eagle Rock Boulevard and Townsend Avenue, the part of Colorado which is frequently identified as ‘downtown Eagle Rock’.

Here’s a map showing all the crash sites along Colorado Boulevard for the year 2000….

Each blue marker represents a crash, some are not visible in the picture as the markers overlap. Crashes mostly occurred west of Eagle Rock Boulevard but no portion of Colorado was exempt from crashes as one can see they dot the entire 3 miles the street runs through the community.

As for the cause of these crashes, failure to yield right-of-way contributed to 11 of the crashes and unsafe speeding was the primary cause in 10 cases. Together these factors caused half of the recorded crashes in the year 2000.

These issues can be minimized through engineering and Take Back The Boulevard seeks to, among other things, re-engineer the street so that it is safer. As one can notice, the poor engineering along Colorado means that unfortunately the year 2000 was not the only dangerous year for Colorado. As neighboring blog Bipediality has shared, between 2005 and 2009 crashes occurred at the equivalent of once a week for those five years. People may like to speed and behave as though Colorado Boulevard is a mini freeway, but this behavior is exactly what is making our major main street so dangerous.

I look forward to sharing more facts about Colorado Boulevard, particularly more data from SWITRS, but hopefully these preliminary findings are partially convincing enough to support this unique opportunity to make Colorado Boulevard a safe and inviting street that properly reflects our otherwise friendly, connected community.

Can Separated Bike Lanes Save Colorado Boulevard?

Presented by Guide to Online Schools

This post is part of a student blogger contest, please click the blue ‘vote’ button to vote for me

Colorado Boulevard, the commercial center of Eagle Rock, will undergo a transformation if the initiative Take Back The Boulevard can maintain the momentum it is experiencing at the moment. A lot of ideas about how to improve the boulevard are being circulated– everything from angled parking to sidewalk extensions, to increased greenery, to bike lanes, and more! Just the other day Eastsider shared the idea of reversed angle in parking as solution.

While there are many popular ideas, I feel that it is important to reflect on the mission of this worthy effort to reclaim our main street from the dangerous freeway it currently resembles. Take Back The Boulevard seeks to transform Colorado Boulevard into a safe, sustainable, and vibrant street in order to stimulate economic growth, increase public safety and enhance community pride. Given that we cannot accommodate all the possible ideas being discussed due to limited space on the street I would like to share why I believe a solution that includes protected bike lanes, also known as cycle tracks, could fulfill as many of the desires of this initiative and is perhaps the most promising solution available.

Protected bike lanes essentially place a bike lane along the curb and place car parking to the left of the bike lane as a buffer separating motorized traffic  and bicycle traffic. To read more about protected bike lanes concept check out the Los Angeles Department of Transportation Bike Blog’s recent post explaining these facilities.

So, installing protected bike lanes along Colorado Boulevard would result in what is known as a ‘road diet’, the removal of one travel lane in each direction. The new found space would be used to accommodate the proposed cycle tracks. Road diets have been proven, nationwide, to increase safety for all users. They have also been known to better the flow of traffic. Read about them here.

However, before I continue, let me share a couple rough drawings I made of what these protected bike lanes just might look like on our boulevard.

This first image is supposed to a rendering of Maywood Avenue and Colorado Boulevard, looking East.

Current Appearance

Via Google Maps Street View

Sketch Including Separated Bike Lane

(From left to right) Sidewalk, separated bike lane, bus stop island, motorized traffic

Now what does separated bike lane do to fulfill the mission of Take Back The Boulevard? Well if one examines my rough sketch there are a few things being accomplished

1) Most obviously a safe space is created to allow travel for cyclists that doesn’t force cyclists to mix with pedestrians or automobiles. This facility will encourage more than just young fearless people to cycle. There is no pressure to ‘keep up’ with motorized traffic and provides an environmental, sustainable means of traveling along the boulevard

2) The bus stop is moved to an island that frees up space on the sidewalk and allows for speedier bus service as buses won’t have pull up to a curb. Bike racks can be placed on this island to again free up space on our precious sidewalks. This bus island also reduces conflict between bicyclists and buses– often bicyclists and buses ‘leap frog’ each other as a bicyclist passes a bus that is stopped then the bus passes the cyclist once in motion again. This removes such conflicts.

3) Crossings for pedestrians is made shorter by allowing them to wait at a refuge alongside the bus stop island.

4) While the moved bus stop frees up sidewalk space, the former bus stop space could also be used to plant trees to provide more greenery.

5) Greater buffer between pedestrians and automobiles, making outdoor dining (where it is available) or mere strolling more pleasant as the increased distances makes the sidewalks less noisy from cars whizzing by.

6) Cars will not be allowed to travel as recklessly as in the past since they will only have two lanes. This will likely result in more civilized speeds and careful, conscious driving. As Tom Vanderbilt notes in his book Traffic, when we make roads forgiving to motorists (like by allowing excess number of lanes), motorists tend to drive sloppier. It’s these kind of excessively wide streets that encourage illegal speeding, and unfortunately result in deaths too.

Here is an other view of the separated bike lane looking West on Maywood Avenue and Colorado Boulevard

Current Appearance

Sketch with protected bike lane

This remains a very rough sketch but I would like to highlight the benefits of this proposed configuration

1) Again a safe space for people of all ages to cycle is created

2)Pedestrian crossings become shorter by allowing the creation of a small refuge

3) The protective barrier between bicyclists and automobiles allows an opportunity to plant trees and other greenery in what is currently just plain asphalt

I realize it may be difficult to completely understand these drawings, however there are also existing examples of where similar spaces have been created. Take a look below where Colorado Boulevard could look for inspiration

Better bus boarding, reduced conflict between cyclists and buses. Photo via Paul Krueger's flickr http://www.flickr.com/photos/pwkrueger/5133809157/

Protected bike lanes can accommodate many parking spaces for cyclists. Given that protected bike lanes are proven to increase the number of trips by bike this would likely be good for business along Colorado Boulevard's storefronts. Photo via Paul Krueger's flickr http://www.flickr.com/photos/pwkrueger/5134416434/

Protected bike lane in Long Beach. Photo via Waltarrrrr's flickr http://www.flickr.com/photos/waltarrrrr/5650654370

Unlike other proposed solutions to fix Colorado Boulevard, configurations similar to what I share in this post consider all users– pedestrians, bicyclists, transit users, and motorists.

Pedestrians get more spacious sidewalks by moving bus stops to islands, shorter crossings through the refuges, greater buffer from automobiles through the separated bike lane

Bicyclists get safe travel space away from automobiles and pedestrians

Transit users get loading platforms that will make getting on and off the bus, easier and faster

Motorists get safer streets that make traveling at the speed limit easier to do, they won’t have to change lanes to pass bicyclists. Potentially shorter waiting times at lights as pedestrians will be able to cross faster thanks to the pedestrian refuges.

Everyone gets a safer configuration, everyone will benefit from increased opportunities to plant greenery by some of the pedestrian refuges. This solution allows flexibility in space. Since bus stops will move to islands sidewalk space formerly used to accommodate the bus stop can be now used to plant trees, install benches, or simply allow a wider space for pedestrians. Colorado Boulevard is currently flooded with cars, this solution will make cycling, walking, and taking the bus more attractive than they currently are and reduce the demand for car parking, one of the problems of the way Colorado Boulevard is configured today.

I’d like to compare this solution to the proposed ‘reverse angle in parking’ that the Eastsider shared the other day. The angled parking creates more parking spaces for cars and could potentially create curb extensions at intersections for pedestrians. This solution also claims it could reduce conflict between bicyclists and cars pulling in/out of parking spaces but if cars stop suddenly to start parking bicyclists will have to swerve around– a not so safe action to take.

While it is an attractive solution in some respects it is awfully car centric. This design will do little to encourage more people to cycle or make bicycling safer. It seems to do nothing to make bus travel easier either. It also, while it will create a buffer between pedestrians and moving automobiles, will rather confine the sidewalk space. I have experienced firsthand that cars tend to pull in to angled parking spaces so that part of the car hovers over the sidewalk, making pedestrian space feel cramped. It also seems that by creating more parking spaces this solution will only encourage driving and wouldn’t be very sustainable, nor make the street more vibrant, in complete contrast with the goals of Take Back The Boulevard. On the other hand, encouraging multiple modes of travel as a thoughtfully constructed cycle tracks can do, the street will be less car centric (and more sustainable) and filled with people rather than cars (and be more vibrant). Because we have limited space I support a solution that will accomplish as many of the goals of Take Back The Boulevard, and implementing separated bike lanes seems to be a promising solution.

Further readings about Colorado Boulevard:

Some Reasons I Support Separated Bike Lanes

A post where I share additional reasons why I support separated bike lanes: “ In making the case for a calmer, more bike friendly Eagle Rock sometimes those who oppose the idea contend car traffic will slow down too much. However, as local resident Jack Burnett-Stuart points out

‘ It is 1.6 miles from the post office to Swork [via Colorado Boulevard]. If the average speed was reduced through a variety of traffic slowing measures (including changing the speed limit, but does anyone pay any attention to that?) from say 40 mph to 20mph, that would add 2 minutes 24 seconds to the time the trip takes ‘ “

Some Facts and Thoughts About Colorado Boulevard

Specific facts detailing current traffic levels of Colorado Boulevard: “Colorado Boulevard is a major highway class II, projected to carry between 30,000 and 50,000 cars daily. Traffic counts available from the LADOT website from the past 15 years shows that Colorado Boulevard seldom carries above 35,000.”

Some Simple Facts

Some simple, yet unfortunate facts about the danger of a car centric Colorado Boulevard: “…there has been approximately one reported accident a week over the past five years. More than half of the accidents involve injuries.”

I entered this post into a ‘student blogger contest’. To vote for me click the blue ‘vote’ button bellow, thanks!

Presented by Guide to Online Schools

Take Back The Boulevard Makes Progress And Other Notes

Anyone excited to see a calmer, safer Colorado Boulevard there’s some good news for you:

As Los Angeles is in the process of implementing its Bike Plan, the city holds quarterly meetings to discuss bicycle facilities, which streets to prioritize for bicycle facilities, education, outreach and more. These meetings are called the ‘Bike Plan Implementation Team’ or BPIT. These meetings are open to the public and the most recent meeting was on October 4th. At this recent meeting Colorado Boulevard was discussed (from LADOT Bike Blog)

Paul Habib with CD 14, announced that the Eagle Rock community is openly seeking a road diet for Colorado Blvd. Through their “Take Back the Boulevard Initiative,” residents hope to:

…make this central corridor through Eagle Rock a safe, sustainable, and vibrant street in order to stimulate economic growth, increase public safety, and enhance economic growth, increase public safety, and enhance community pride and wellness.

Unfortunately, removal of a travel lane for this corridor will very likely have a significant impact on auto traffic, triggering the need to conduct environmental review and roadway reclassification, prior to implementation. However, thanks to the BPIT process, these three miles of Colorado Blvd between Lincoln Ave. and the Glendale City limit have now been added to the Priority 1 environmental package. This means that Eagle Rock residents will be able to lobby their elected City leaders for a safer, more sustainable Colorado Blvd. sooner, rather than later. If successful, this project could set a precedent for the region as an example of vehicle travel lane removal to allow for increased safety and mobility for bicycles and pedestrians.

What does this mean exactly? Well bike lanes on Colorado Boulevard weren’t slated to be implemented until 2015 according to the LA Bike Plan. However, thanks to the Take Back The Boulevard momentum, a receptive council member representing us, and open meetings Colorado Boulevard has been moved to Priority 1 environmental package meaning that the street will be studied and likely see a bike lane sooner than originally planned.

And speaking of Take Back The Boulevard, the initiative is asking us what we like, what we don’t like, and what we would like to see come to Colorado Boulevard in a survey linked to on the initiative’s website. Click here to access the survey. The survey represents an opportunity to give input on this community project and I encourage you to spend a thoughtful 5 minutes to fill it out.

And if you would like to make Glendale, our neighboring city, a safer place to cycle the city is currently updating its Bike Plan and is accepting public comments. If you have the time, check out what the city has planned and make a few suggestions about how bicycling can be made more pleasant. Click here to access Glendale’s Bike Plan and make comments.

Also in more safe streets Eagle Rock related news, the excellent Eagle Rock based blog Zone 23 makes a sound case to ‘Take Back Yosemite Drive, Too’. In the ‘early’ days of Walk Eagle Rock I addressed Yosemite Drive in two separate post, if interested here are the posts I made– part 1 and part 2.

One more note about Glendale bicycling– the other day I cam across a rather interesting video that taught children how to ‘drive’ their bikes in the 1950′s. The video was filmed in Glendale, take a look below

Lastly, this is now old news but this LA Times article, ‘A Walk on the Risky Side‘ is a stark reminder of who pays the price of negligent driving and dangerous road design on our streets. It is my belief that a civilized society is one where a child should be able to walk to school safely without worry of getting hit by a car. Let’s reclaim the streets, make them safe  and liveable for everyone, especially children going to school– this is about more than ‘bikes vs cars’, it’s about providing safe mobility for all ages and all modes of travel.