Majority of Colorado Businesses in Chamber Survey Oppose Bike Lanes

An Eagle Rock Chamber of Commerce survey reveals 43.5 percent respondents want Colorado to stay as it is, as opposed to 17.5 percent who favor bike lanes.

The Eagle Rock Chamber of Commerce released the results Monday of a survey it conducted of whether or not business owners along Colorado Boulevard support the Los Angeles Department of Transportation’s installation of bike lane on the thoroughfare or if they prefer “sharrows”—lanes shared by both automobiles and bicycles.

Respondents were also given the option of offering their own ideas for installing bike lanes.

Of the 108 responses received, 43.5 percent said they wish to retain Colorado as it is, without the addition of bike lanes, according to Chamber Vice President Allen Yap, who informed members of the organization about the vote in an e-mail blast Monday.

Just 17.5 percent of respondents opted for the installation of a bike lane in both directions of the boulevard, while 28.7 percent preferred sharrows—an option that is not part of the city’s 2010 Bicycle Master Plan.

Slightly more than10 percent of respondents abstained from participating in the survey or were undecided on the issue, Yap said.

The survey was conducted by a Chamber volunteer who walked both sides of Colorado Boulevard from Loleta Avenue to the Glendale 2 freeway bridge from May 6 to May 10, Yap said, adding that the survey was an “an effort to assure that we were correctly representing the feelings of Colorado Boulevard businesses in Eagle Rock.”

The survey follows a unanimous 17-0 vote by the Chamber’s executive board on March 26, opposing bike lanes in Eagle Rock.

Monica G May 16, 2013 at 03:54 PM
Here are just a few thoughts regarding the arguments FOR a bike lane addition: 1. Bike lanes slow down traffic - The posted speed limit is 35, and police officers handing out speeding tickets (they could make a killing here) would actually do the same thing, without causing the traffic congestion that is sure to come with removing a traffic lane. 2. Bike lanes improve the environment - Um, last I checked, cars idling on traffic-congested streets does not reduce vehicular emissions (and not everyone has a hybrid), so unless more people change their mode of transportation from automobile to bicycle, I can't really see this happening. 3. Forcing cyclists to ride "all the way to the right" puts them at risk of being hit by, or running into, an opening door from a parked car - bike lanes ARE IN THE PATH of a parked car's door width, so this argument just cancelled itself out. 4. Cyclists are currently only allotted 1% of the transportation budget - yet they "require" EXPENSIVE changes. Maybe bicycles need to become licensed, registered, and INSURED vehicles thereby providing more revenue to help pay for some of the changes they so fervently demand. (Previous arguments against bike registration goes "we pay registration for our automobiles and shouldn't have to register our bikes because they are not motorized vehicles" - yet you demand expensive changes to the roads that you want to SHARE with vehicles...and sometimes aggressively so.) I am all for sharing the road, but not at the expense of losing a car lane. There are many ideas on how to solve this issue, and here is one of mine: Let's remove the center park strip to make into a center turning lane, divide the sidewalks to accommodate two forms of use; in the width that the street trees are now occupying, turn it into a dedicated bike path, separating the pedestrian portion from the bike portion by use of a short curb. This type of "shared" pedestrian/bicycle path works at the beach, and it can work in an urban environment as well. We do not need such a wide pedestrian sidewalk, and if we use the same basic layout, the new bike "road" can still be used as a buffer between us, the parked cars, and the moving traffic, since distance between pedestrians and the moving traffic would remain pretty much the same. Cyclists would have their bike lane, the autos would keep their 6 lanes of traffic, and pedestrians would also have their footpaths. We could also remove one car parking spot every two blocks, on alternating sides, to provide bicycle parking (hey, they can walk two blocks, the same way some of us drivers have to do, when we can't find near-by parking.) ;) On a closing note, maybe we could remove a few of the unsightly (and empty) buildings, in favor of a streamlined parking structure, thereby providing (income to the property owner, and more revenue to the city), more appeal to the motorists who would otherwise pass up a shopping experience in Eagle Rock, due to the lack of parking...after all, the businesses are interested in attracting more shoppers, aren't they?
Joanne Turner May 18, 2013 at 11:08 PM
So you would remove ALL the trees and plantings in our commercial districts, just to keep cars zooming by at their present dangerous speeds and make bicyclists more likely to hit pedestrians and restaurant patrons sitting at tables on the then-more-crowded sidewalks? First of all, that would be against the law. The Specific Plan (the law) states that attractive, maintained landscaping and street trees are integral to the appeal and success of the Plan area. Removing and not replacing any of it would make for one very hot and visually unappealing downtown district, in direct contrast to the word, spirit, and intent of the Plan. It took YEARS of hard work, by the way, to get the diseased and deformed flowering pear trees replaced with the stately London planes that now line much of Colorado Boulevard. This should not need to be explained, but they soften and shade the sidewalk and the parking lanes, not to mention create oxygen to clean our air. Someday they will grow tall and wide enough to shade what I hope would be the bike lanes, too. Walking, riding, eating, or parking in the blistering sun is not something I care to do while shopping locally. That scenario would downright scare off shoppers and send them to commercial areas that value making the shopping experience a very pleasant one for customers. Not so long ago, when our commercial districts were dirty, depressing, weed-chocked and full of empty storefronts, local residents flocked to Old Pasadena and Glendale to do their shopping because our district had very little or nothing to offer in terms of goods, services, and visual appeal. We might have many more businesses now, but taking away prominent, positive features will badly hurt rather than help. Further, it WON'T attract new business. We can't go back to doing ugly. In both commercial and residential districts, GOOD DESIGN MATTERS, and trees and landscaping are central to it. So is slower traffic.
eaglerocker May 21, 2013 at 05:15 PM
Still waiting on answers to my questions about this survey. Who were the businesses who answered it? Was the "Chamber volunteer" who asked the questions our local bully, Tom Topping? Did he only go to businesses who advertise in the Boulevard Pennysaver? Did he target or threaten businesses who have come out in support of bike lanes? Inquiring minds want to know: Do we have a Chamber of Commerce, or a Chamber of Crooks?


More »
Got a question? Something on your mind? Talk to your community, directly.
Note Article
Just a short thought to get the word out quickly about anything in your neighborhood.
Share something with your neighbors.What's on your mind?What's on your mind?Make an announcement, speak your mind, or sell somethingPost something
See more »