The La Crescenta Avenue Rehabilitation Project has ignited considerable debate, particularly regarding the plan to reduce vehicular lanes to accommodate new bicycle lanes. A central concern among residents is the actual usage of these bike lanes within La Crescenta, a community shared by two jurisdictions, the City of Glendale and unincorporated Los Angeles County. Review the entire project.
Bicycle Lane Usage and Community Coordination:
Specific data on bicycle lane usage in La Crescenta is limited. However, insights from nearby areas offer some perspective. For instance, Glendale recently implemented a parking-protected bike lane on Brand Boulevard as part of a temporary demonstration project. This initiative faced enormous community pushback, from businesses, residents and the Fire department at a cost of over 1 million dollars for them to be tested and then taken down. They caused traffic back-ups, multiple blid spots for parking and saefty issues in response time for the Fire Department.
The Foothill Boulevard Active Transportation Plan, which evaluates approximately six miles of Foothill Boulevard connecting Glendale and La Cañada Flintridge through La Crescenta-Montrose, indicates that existing bicycle facilities along this corridor generally consist of Class II bike lanes. These lanes range from four to six feet in width and are striped between the travel lane and the parking lane within the project boundary.
Residents have expressed frustration over the perceived lack of coordination between the City of Glendale and Los Angeles County concerning unincorporated areas of La Crescenta. They feel that Glendale’s unilateral decisions on infrastructure projects, such as the La Crescenta Avenue Rehabilitation, disregard the broader community’s needs and concerns. This sentiment echoes past controversies, such as the installation of a “Welcome to Glendale” sign on Foothill Boulevard, which sparked significant community uproar.
Similar projects in neighboring communities, like the bike lane installations in La Cañada Flintridge and Sunland-Tujunga, have also faced scrutiny. Observations suggest that these lanes are underutilized, raising questions about the efficacy of such investments in sprawling communities where cycling may not be a primary mode of transportation.
Balancing Improvements with Community Needs:
While there is widespread support for infrastructure enhancements that improve safety—such as traffic light upgrades, curb repairs, and ADA-compliant modifications—residents are concerned about reducing vehicular access on major thoroughfares to accommodate bike lanes. In communities characterized by dispersed residential areas and limited commercial hubs, reliance on personal vehicles remains high. Therefore, infrastructure changes that significantly impact driving routes are met with resistance.
Moving Forward:
To address these concerns, it is crucial for city planners and officials to engage in comprehensive dialogues with all affected communities, including those in unincorporated areas. Collaborative planning that considers actual usage patterns, community feedback, and the unique characteristics of each area will lead to more effective and accepted infrastructure improvements.
Your Perspective:
We invite you to share your thoughts on this matter. Do you believe the current approach to the La Crescenta Avenue Rehabilitation Project aligns with the community’s best interests? How do you envision the future of transportation and infrastructure in Glendale and its neighboring communities? Your insights are crucial in shaping a city that reflects the values and needs of all its residents.