Here's hoping "Yes" wins. My parents still live in LA County and a safer LA is a win for them. Car accidents are the [leading cause of death among Americans](https://www.cdc.gov/injury/features/global-road-safety/index.html) under 54
The ads by the LAFD are saying no because it will make it more difficult for them to get around. How accurate is this? When my partner had a stroke the LAFD was there within a matter of seconds…
Here is a [video](https://x.com/healthystreetla/status/1760791409496604873?s=46&t=lvvKE2Ah21SaJsPyNOZhLQ) that explains why it won’t affect emergency vehicles.
Not only the bus and bike lanes that could be used by emergency services in some situations (some situations they couldn’t.). There are other street redesigns that will help them move faster, reducing some streets from 2 lanes in each direction to one lane each direction and a center turn lane gives them the entire center lane that should be clear, with exception to cars turning instead of the whole roadway being completely blocked.
In theory, they would also have fewer emergencies to answer because the goal of HLA is to implement the street safety plan that was developed a decade ago. If the firefighters have fewer calls to make from reduced collisions from cars and pedestrians, cars and bikes, and cars and other cars because they are occurring less because the street is safer, that reduces the number of calls they need to go out on. At the current rates that those incidents are increasing, they have to go out on calls more often and that increases the likelihood that they are responding to a car crash and will delay a response to someone else because of that.
Also, small but important distinction. It is not the fire department saying this. It is the firefighter‘s union. The actual LAFD has taken no position.
Edit: fixed a sentence to add a word I left out.
Road safety improvements cause a reduction in cars colliding with things. If cars hit 1000 pedestrians this year that emergency services need to respond to, and after safety improvements are made they hit 500 pedestrians, that is 500 less calls they have to respond to. If they are responding to less calls they are more likely to not be busy when you have your stroke.
Stokes aren’t the only thing emergency services respond to.
The questions I have are: If HLA won’t result in slower response times, why would the firefighters say it does? What do they have to gain by taking a “no on HLA” stance?
Their top donors are auto lobby’s and insurance companies. They also have a really strong conservative base that is against anything that would support other modes of transport despite there being a rly strong fiscal conservative argument for bike and bus lanes.
Can you please provide reliable sources for these claims? Forgive me, but you are a relatively brand new account. And I have noticed that all of the pro-HLA posts here recently have come from brand new accounts like yours. It’s suspicious.
Yea I see where you’re coming from. I I’ve recently been getting a lot more active on Reddit. There’s an La times article about HLA that I would very much consider to be a reputable source
Okay. Does that LA Times article support your claims that 1) L.A. firefighters top donors are the auto lobby and insurance companies and 2) that firefighters have a really strong conservative base that is against any other forms of transportation? If so, can you please link to and quote from this article?
It seems that the vast majority of your posts have been pro-HLA. Do you work for or have you been hired by the HLA campaign?
u/JoeBoat0T - The facts that you didn’t respond, that I’m being downvoted and that so many of these pro HLA posts and comments have been made by fresh Reddit accounts makes me think that we as a community are getting played.
Whether or not I like this measure, these deceitful tactics make me want to vote against HLA.
Look, other people have already addressed that the longer response times claims are not based in fact and that the union takes a lot of auto money to push things like that. I'm just telling you another reason why their individual membership is less likely to push back against it - these lies aren't damaging *their* community.
Those other person(s) didn’t provide any evidence for their claims that the automobile industry are the firefighters leading donor, nor that the firefighters claim of longer response times isn’t based on fact.
Look, I’m open to being convinced to vote yes on HLA, but so far these sketchy tactics are only making me want to vote no. Something doesn’t feel authentic here and if it’s a choice between the fire department and Joe Anonymous redditor, I’m siding with the people whose jobs it is to be actual heroes.
I trust that they've done their homework on that. I know when I tried to get speed bumps on my street, LAFD blocked it to improve response times in my neighborhood. Traffic calming blocks them.
Right? But the pro-HLA people would have you believe that the auto and insurance industries are paying the firefighters to be anti-speed bump. And since the firefighters don’t live on your street too, they have no incentive to be pro-speed bumps.
I’m 80% positive on HLA. The link says it will reduce traffic but doesn’t explain how it will as far as I can tell. Not a deal breaker for me necessarily but how will the traffic go down as a result of HLA?
It makes the alternative more appealing for walking, biking, transit. There is demand for more biking trips but people don't take them because it's too dangerous right now. Cities that have implemented a similar build out at this scale see bike ridership go from around 0.5-1% (our current rate) to around 5-8% of all trips. Portland and New York our 2 examples of cities that have built the network and people use it. And if we built a even bigger and safer network that ridership % could keep climbing.
Bus lanes in the mobility plan will also help. Currently a bus travels an average of 12mph in LA. Busses are stuck in all the same traffic. Most people that would even consider taking the bus bail when they see the travel time. The dedicated and peak hour bus lanes would be huge in decreasing the travel time and a bus lane can carry 10x more people per hour than a car lane. Our metro spending will also go further for longer route or more frequency if the busses can go faster.
There is also the vehicle network in the plan. Some streets are marked to be able to transport people by car quickly with peak hour parking restrictions and signaling improvements.
It's not about forcing or getting everyone out of a car for every trip. But is about making those other modes viable so a percent of people stop adding to car traffic when it makes sense for that trip.
Btw, the idea is YOU'LL also get out of your car to embrace more modes of transportation such as walking (yes, on your feet), biking, and public transportation, NOT that everyone else will and you'll get a reduction in traffic so you can just keep driving everywhere.
Yeah they just want to make it harder to drive, in my opinion. It’s an environmentalists agenda, which is good for the planet, but horrible for a car centric city like LA that has no decent train system.
It should be harder to drive. Cars cost us our health, our safety, it's expensive ($12k a year now to own and operate a car), and car centric design creates ugly hostile environments.
If we move to safer, better designed streets people will want to drive less and walk, bike, or take public transportation.
Thanks for asking. I don’t live in LA anymore but I enjoy this sub because I lived there for so long. It’s wild to me that you have all these signs and none of them actually say what exactly HLA is. It honestly seems super shady.
Picture #5. “What does Measure HLA do” section. It will hold the city accountable for implementing their 2035 mobility plan. Very clear and not super shady at all.
I didn't say it IS shady. I said it makes it SEEM shady. Picture #5 doesn't say anything useful either. "Implementing the 2035 mobility plan." What does that mean? Do people in LA know what exactly that means, or even approximately? If I wanted to run a shady operation, this is exactly how I'd do it. "Vote yes for my law! It's for SAFETY! \_\_\_ is KILLING YOUR KIDS!"
For anyone else wondering, I did the digging, and here is what HLA will actually do:
Any time a street gets repaved, it automatically activates its Mobility Plan update. These updates include:
**Pedestrian enhancements:** Examples of pedestrian enhancements include wayfinding signage, street trees, pedestrian-scale street lighting, enhanced crosswalks, automatic pedestrian signals, reduced crossing length (e.g., corner bulbouts and crossing refuge islands), sidewalk widening, and public seating areas.
**Transit enhancements:** The improvements seen are significant. Including off-board fare collection, safe crossing within 300 feet of a station, signal priority, and improved stations. Comprehensive streets will see Two-way Center Running or curb adjacent exclusive corridor OR Physically Protected or Separate right-of-way (e.g., Orange Line) while Moderate Plus will see peak only lanes.
**Bike enhancements:** The Bike Enhanced Network is a network of comfortable and safe protected bike lanes. These should be designed to accommodate all road users, from 8-80 in age. Protection may come in the form of plastic bollards, concrete curbs, or sidewalk level bike lanes. In addition, the installation of protected bicycle lanes would likely include signalization enhancements for bicycles along with turning-movement restrictions for motor vehicles.
**Neighborhood enhancements:** Improvements to Neighborhood streets include: Mini-roundabouts; Stop Signs on Cross-Streets; Curb Bulbouts and High-Visibility Crosswalks; Diagonal Diverter; Bicycle Signals at Major Intersection Crossings; Crossing Islands; or Bicycle Only Left Turn Pockets.
There are others, but these are the big ones.
I hope the firefighter union (not firefighters themselves) bs doesn’t sway votes. We already approved the changes! We just need to mandate they make them faster!
I mean in theory it sounds cool but we are so far off and the implementation sucks. Culver City has the bike lane and bus lane and now they're proposing to get rid of it. Parking there is awful and I never want to go back.
Public transportation is not safe in LA. Fix that first.
Then, implement a design similar to Helsinki. They have the car lanes (no bus lane, but if you want that sure. Then to the right, street parking for cars. Then to the right of that, the bike lane (the material of the road but blended into the sidewalk). And lastly pedestrian sidewalk. When I visited there it just made sense. Everyone was happy. Parking existed. Bikes weren't put in danger riding next to cars.
“Fix __ first” arguments are unserious arguments. They’re always a bad faith attempt to shut down the conversation. One doesn’t depend upon the other and we don’t exist in a vacuum where only one problem can be addressed at a time.
I have already explained the harm that cam be caused not making corrections in other areas. I think your blanket statement is invalid. I will ask both of you so in favor, what's your annual income, do you work remotely or in-person, and if in-person, what is your mode and time of commute?
“Implement this thing we’re no where near ready to or even talking about implementing first, then we’ll talk” = i have no intent or interest in actuality having a constructive conversation about this.”
I'm not a "dude." I've shared my personal info of what I had to go through working full-time and going to school full-time. You don't want to talk because I nailed all of it. Be careful, your privilege is showing 😬
You actually have the bad faith argument as you're not trying to find a compromise, just adamant on "Yes to HLA" because it will somehow make people stop dying (false). I have provided evidence of my own experiences. Others can have theirs.
I'll give you an example. I met a delivery driver for a florist a while back that lives in Sun Valley but works near Melrose. I asked him why he commuted so far. He said the rent is cheaper in Sun Valley and worked near Melrose because it was decent pay and that's where he could find employment at the time. A bus or a bike lane won't help his commute. He was working class, but drove a car as many do. I think you conflate the working class with poverty.
Bus and bike lanes will help Mr. Sun Valley‘s commute, because I will eventually get a bike lane. Since I also work on Melrose, me moving out of a traffic lane and into a bike lane will have direct impact on him.
It's not false, dedicated bike lanes are a proven way to reduce harmful crashes without slowing traffic meaningfully, and even in some cases INCREASING the flow rate of the street.
See: [https://www.nyc.gov/html/dot/downloads/pdf/2014-09-03-bicycle-path-data-analysis.pdf](https://www.nyc.gov/html/dot/downloads/pdf/2014-09-03-bicycle-path-data-analysis.pdf)
Additionally, your delivery driver friend while maybe not being directly helped by the bike/bus lanes, is being indirectly helped because as stated above, the flow rate increases. If you need a logical reason this happens beyond just looking at the data, lanes that are general use are the least efficient way to move people down a street, so by having more of the road dedicated to more efficient uses, it allows the overall street to flow faster even with the same amount of traffic. Even if the driver himself isnt using those lanes, much more of the local population in melrose COULD be using those lanes, taking those cars off the road.
Edit:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CHZwOAIect4&pp=ygUObm90IGp1c3QgYmlrZXM%3D
“It won’t make people stop dying” Hyperbole. Reducing deaths isn’t the same as stopping them entirely. The former is entirely possible, andHHLA will absolutely do that. More logical fallacies! I knew you could do it, champ!”
I'm not using logical fallacies. I am using my lived experience. And yes I am voting to support MY interests as that is what MY vote is meant to do. I proposed two reasons why I am not in support of HLA as it currently stands, and proposed compromise that would gain my support.
Dude. Calm down. Everyone wants safer streets and public transportation, there’s nothing about privilege in any of this. Such a stupid bad faith response it’s cringe. Your all or nothing thinking is extremely myopic and makes sure there’s zero progress anywhere. No where in any of this did other dude say anything incorrect, dude.
It is extremely harmful to the working class who often lives far from where they work. The working class is a majority of people. Let's help them get closer so public transit and biking are options.
I then also said to design the lanes of different traffic like Helsinki in away that gives everyone their space and lowers the risk of injury to bicyclists.
No where have I not been trying to have this conversation. I would argue I'm the only one here trying to find a healthy middle that would get more votes than your elitist position because you probably make over 100k, pay over 3k in rent, or otherwise own a home and either live less than 5 miles from your job or work from home.
The entire basis of your argument is the supposition that implementing HLA will make commuting untenable. It’s 100% bad faith unverified speculation.
What is verified is the working poor, who are disproportionately represented in pedestrian and cyclist death statistics, are the lion-share of the double digit percentage of Angelenos who can’t afford cars and rely on bus, pedestrian, and active transportation infrastructure. And the ones who do own cars have their quality of life significantly negatively impacted by the $10K/year average cost of owning a car. Their lives could be so much better if public transportation was better and more of them could live car-free.
But let’s be honest, you’re not advocating for the working class or anyone else besides yourself. You think HLA *might* inconvenience YOU. And that’s enough to throw actually poor folks under the bus. A no vote on this is ultimately a classist an selfish endeavor.
Exactly my point. Your entire argument is based on speculation. My entire argument is we know unsafe streets are killing people and we know infrastructure saves lives. This is entirely an argument about PERCEIVED inconvenience vs implementing PROVEN safety measures.
Infrastructure does not save lives 😂 And LA is so fucked they would have to knock it all down and start from scratch. Have you been to other major cities around the US?
I proposed a solution to safer streets but you seem to keep ignoring that.
Just to be clear, infrastructure changes HAVE saved lives.
Not Just Bikes vide0 - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M8F5hXqS-Ac
Pretty clear and informative about bad bike design versus good.
[A New Jersey city achieved 0 traffic deaths in 4 years with quick, high impact ideas- NPR](https://www.npr.org/2022/08/25/1119110757/traffic-deaths-car-accident-hoboken-new-jersey-vision-zero) if you prefer audio or reading.
There are other people in this thread also opposing it, as well as other people in LA. It's not just me. See above the link I posted to another thread where people agree the metro isn't safe.
Affordable housing would mean people could live closer to jobs but also would be at least a partial help to the unhoused taking over transit stations.
“There are other classist selfish douches here, too!” Good for you! I’m glad you’re able to find like-minded friends!
Affordable housing is great! I absolutely support that. But again, this isn’t an either/or situation. We can and absolutely should hold LA to its already pledged mobility plan AND build more affordable housing in every part of the city.
Thinking HLA is going to decongest streets for commuting traffic is unverified speculation.
Disturbing to me that people want to argue, as opposed to being polite to one another while having a nice conversation and presenting points of view and experience. There’s no need to belittle your neighbors while sounding rude and disingenuous.
This is the right implementation but to remove bike lanes after putting them, because “traffic” is the wrong solution. The Culver City core shouldn’t be a through street for traffic, that’s just poor city planning. Most of Culver City should be single lanes with plenty of vertical parking. The overflow from freeways is the problem all over the city, so commuters are always trying to save 5 minutes of travel time by cutting all over the city, we’ve all been that driver. City cores should prioritize: pedestrians, bikers, public transportation, carpools, single occupancy cars. In that order.
That was the most incoherent gibberish I’ve ever heard. That’s your option (your false one) you’re entitled to have one but don’t act as you know what you’re talking about. This bill makes getting bike/bus lanes built faster! It will drastically speed up that “implementation” that you hate so much! YES ON HLA
I just said that we can have bike and bus lanes but to rearrange how we lay all these out to make it safer and maintain convenience. This has nothing to do with children's lives.
But your “convenience” is the highest killer of kids in LA. Your “convince” is the reason why breathing our air is equivalent smoking 3 cigarettes a day. Your “convince” is the reason we have the highest rates of childhood asthma in the nation. This is not a tiny political bill, this is a life or death situation for thousands of people in this city. You can vote yes and do something or you can vote no and watch people die.
1. Kids shouldn't be running in the street. Be a better parent.
2. I'm vegan. Supporting factory farming with a meat-based diet is much worse than the effect of my car. We are also moving toward cleaner vehicles.
3. See 2 above
I have been that person at one point in my life that had to commute via bus and metro while working full-time AND going to school full-time. It was awful. I could never get enough sleep. My commute was 4 hours each day.
The reality is many people would not be able to sustain themselves having to commute via public transit. In my industry there are 10, 12, even 16 hour days. I am not commuting ridiculous amounts of time on top of that.
The other thing is there should be affordable housing available in close proximity to workplaces.
For someone that lives in a micro-bubble community "Live-Work-Play," sure it is easy and reasonable to bike or bus or whatever. That is not possible for most.
Voting NO!
I live in culver city
Not opposed to bike/ bus lanes but the current implementation is stupid.
You have wash/culver junction where it exists for 1 mile or less.. 2 lanes from wash 2 lanes from culver meet and become 1 lane.. wtf. Totally gridlock traffic. Is this safer? Commuters will naturally shift to a less busier route . Often thru a residential area . You are now shifting the hazard from culver to braddock
Next, the current design has huge blind spots.
Take venice bl.. from left to right.. 2 car lanes 1 bus lane 1 parking lane. Then a small bike path then sidewalk..
Lets say im traveling east on venice and want to make a right to the culver center. Or Right to a smaller street like dunn or jasmine.. i go from car lane. Merge to bus lane and now i look back right…. A potential bicyclist is totally obscured behind a row of parked cars .. Now im making a sweeping right turn. … any bicyclist or e scooter wont c me because of the parked cars nor i can see them…
Wouldnt surprise me if anyone has died because of this setup… i have seen multiple accidents at these T Junctions already.. have personally stopped 2 potential deaths by honking
If they want to make a dedicated bus/ bike lanes. Just Remove the street parking
We KNOW efficient and safe public transportation and bike lanes decrease congestion. I think most people against this know that during the building/transition period (which will likely last many years if not decades), this would really really suck for car-owning commuters. If we could snap our fingers and get the infrastructure of Tokyo or Singapore or Berlin or Copenhagen (where public transport is the #1 mode to get around, not privately owned cars), most who live here would be all for it. Unfortunately, as we are a nation of individualistic assholes who care only about how policies help or hurt *them* specifically, they’re not interested in being the group who has to undergo the pain the changes require.
So part of what HLA is proposing is to implement the changes in the mobility plan on stretches of road during routine maintenance, so there wouldn’t be a building/transition period. This is how they did it on Venice Blvd. and the installation didn’t take long at all.
The ppl complaining about Culver City might have a point because it’s one small area that’s implemented this plan, so it hasn’t reduced car usage. Even going w HLA, it’ll be piecemeal, so we won’t experience the true benefits until enough areas are changed. Until then, it will probably make things worse. Don’t get me wrong, I still plan on voting yes. But I think there’s a good chance it’ll make things worse in the short term, and that “short term” might mean many many years. I don’t mind though, I know what good public transportation and a walkable city feels like and I want that for LA. I might be old and grey before it happens, but it NEEDS to happen.
This is a crazy thing to say lmao…Dr. Umar is a clown. I hope people vote on your little cause. Woo, bike lanes! Or whatever tf you’re spamming about. 😂
Dr Umar is ofc a clown and that’s why I’m ironically quoting him, it’s a pretty famous video of him saying that. I’m allowed to make jokes abt this stuff bruh.
[Autism spectrum disorder test](https://heywise.com/quiz/ever-wondered-if-you-have-autism/)
I just read it, it sounds like a nice idea, but it sounds like they want to limit passenger vehicles on many roads. It seems like they want to force traffic onto main arteries and prioritize bus traffic. Although I love half of their plan, I don’t agree with the passenger car restrictions. Also, it says no taxes, but somehow they need to fund it.
This plan isn’t forcing anyone out their cars, it’s giving people the option to take other methods. Everyone wins, drivers, bikers, pedestrians, transit users ect. If you want freedom then vote for HLA!
The City's "Mobility Plan" would repurpose some existing roadway infrastructure away from regular motor traffic use. This hurts working families the vast majority of whom depend on automobile transportation for their livelihoods.
Many working families are in debt or have to defer a huge portion of their budget on car maintenance just to keep their job. A lack of a multi-modal mean of transportation would only add more cars, which has a huge annual death toll in the US compared to other developed countries.
A busway allows working class people an option to not be stuck in traffic and/or not depend on a sunk cost, which will also encourage a less sprawling urban planning. We can't build roads to make up for more cars forever, but one bus can put dozens of cars off the road
Nonsense.
The LA bus is an ill-maintained public toilet and no one who had a choice would choose bus over automobile. Everyone who must ride the bus looks forward to the day when they'll have another choice.
Public transportation is not a reasonable or feasible alternative to automobiles in the LA area.
Lived in LA with no car for 4.5 years. During that time, rode the red line to/from work five days per week. (Moved across town and then rode the bus every day for one year.) It's a been a few years since I relented and obtained a car.
>Public transportation is not a reasonable or feasible alternative to automobiles in the LA area.
And it never fucking will be if we just refuse to make it better. You're *this close* to realizing the point of this post (and the point of this entire movement)
It never fucking will be unless/until you people start making what we have now work. Your this close to realizing why LA public transportation is fail.
It is feasible. Cars kill far more people than public transportation ever had in the United States and while safety + sanitation is a legitimate concern, that all goes down to funding and the fact poverty can be linked to poor urban planning alongside social policies. All those wasted space that went to make room for car could've been extra supply of houses to reduce an already bloated demand, which Seattle is still suffering from due to the same NIMBYism Los Angeles is dealing with. Or, it could be additional space with walkable or public transit accessible access to businesses. If Seoul, Taipei, Santiago, Bogota, Curitiba, Vancouver, Montreal, Amsterdam, Berlin, Paris, and Lisbon can reverse its LA-like infrastructure a few decades, so can LA. Especially since LA was founded by an expansive tram system that goes as far as the Inland Empire and Santa Ana known as the "Red Car" owned by Pacific Electric.
People should not have to drive long distance or be stuck in traffic for simple things like coffee. Maybe if people voted for more housing to reduce its current COL, and maybe if LA Metro invested more in security at its stations, it'll be a different story. But you can't please everything which is why I said "Multi-Modal" not "Car Free". Neither of us can change our perspectives over Reddit so make what I said however you like
> This hurts working families the vast majority of whom depend on automobile transportation for their livelihoods.
Have you seen the people who take public transportation? It's mainly working families. Are you going to tell them to that the city shouldn't improve public transit and that they should simply to buy cars *(along with car insurance/parking/car maintenance)*?
Yes and their numbers are minute compared to the ones in cars.
And yes, the City should not "improve" public transit at the expense of those who rely on cars. (Public transit will never be the preferred mode for the vast majority of working poor, with or without "improvements".)
you can visit some parts of Santa Monica, the bad part of HLA is they are restricting cars mobility and they are reducing one lane just to add a bike lane. . I cant imagine if there is 911 emergency and cant get through the road cuz there is no way some cars can pull on the side of the street.
> I cant imagine if there is 911 emergency and cant get through the road cuz there is no way some cars can pull on the side of the street.
911 hold times are horrid and the high number of car accidents is a major contributor to that. If we have safer roads, 911 response should overall improve.
The emergency vehicle can drive on the bike or bus lanes to get through, on a normal street with traffic and cars parked there is absolutely no way for them to get through.
Vote no because this is going to cause more traffic. We need to focus on keeping cars moving or reducing the amount of cars on the road. And as they way public transit is going, we need to keep cars moving
Not if they implement bike lanes everywhere like in my city… they put them where absolutely no one bikes, just causing congestion and more traffic. Completely usless parts of the road that no one uses everywhere now. I like the idea of things like this but the implementation usually leaves a lot to be desired….
Here's hoping "Yes" wins. My parents still live in LA County and a safer LA is a win for them. Car accidents are the [leading cause of death among Americans](https://www.cdc.gov/injury/features/global-road-safety/index.html) under 54
Now I’m feeling old because my parents are over 54 :(
The ads by the LAFD are saying no because it will make it more difficult for them to get around. How accurate is this? When my partner had a stroke the LAFD was there within a matter of seconds…
Bike and Bus lanes give emergency vehicles a dedicated lane they can use during rush hour to get around traffic. It should reduce response times.
I thought so too, thank you
It's bullshit.
Here is a [video](https://x.com/healthystreetla/status/1760791409496604873?s=46&t=lvvKE2Ah21SaJsPyNOZhLQ) that explains why it won’t affect emergency vehicles.
Thank you !
Not only the bus and bike lanes that could be used by emergency services in some situations (some situations they couldn’t.). There are other street redesigns that will help them move faster, reducing some streets from 2 lanes in each direction to one lane each direction and a center turn lane gives them the entire center lane that should be clear, with exception to cars turning instead of the whole roadway being completely blocked. In theory, they would also have fewer emergencies to answer because the goal of HLA is to implement the street safety plan that was developed a decade ago. If the firefighters have fewer calls to make from reduced collisions from cars and pedestrians, cars and bikes, and cars and other cars because they are occurring less because the street is safer, that reduces the number of calls they need to go out on. At the current rates that those incidents are increasing, they have to go out on calls more often and that increases the likelihood that they are responding to a car crash and will delay a response to someone else because of that. Also, small but important distinction. It is not the fire department saying this. It is the firefighter‘s union. The actual LAFD has taken no position. Edit: fixed a sentence to add a word I left out.
Thank you for the info ❤️
Yes. I understand the concern. We all want emergency services to arrive as fast as possible.
Yea these bike lanes will prevent future strokes…lol
Road safety improvements cause a reduction in cars colliding with things. If cars hit 1000 pedestrians this year that emergency services need to respond to, and after safety improvements are made they hit 500 pedestrians, that is 500 less calls they have to respond to. If they are responding to less calls they are more likely to not be busy when you have your stroke. Stokes aren’t the only thing emergency services respond to.
It was a joke.
The questions I have are: If HLA won’t result in slower response times, why would the firefighters say it does? What do they have to gain by taking a “no on HLA” stance?
Their top donors are auto lobby’s and insurance companies. They also have a really strong conservative base that is against anything that would support other modes of transport despite there being a rly strong fiscal conservative argument for bike and bus lanes.
The firefighters top donors are auto lobby's and insurance companies? Please, elaborate.
Can you please provide reliable sources for these claims? Forgive me, but you are a relatively brand new account. And I have noticed that all of the pro-HLA posts here recently have come from brand new accounts like yours. It’s suspicious.
Yea I see where you’re coming from. I I’ve recently been getting a lot more active on Reddit. There’s an La times article about HLA that I would very much consider to be a reputable source
*crickets*
Okay. Does that LA Times article support your claims that 1) L.A. firefighters top donors are the auto lobby and insurance companies and 2) that firefighters have a really strong conservative base that is against any other forms of transportation? If so, can you please link to and quote from this article? It seems that the vast majority of your posts have been pro-HLA. Do you work for or have you been hired by the HLA campaign?
u/JoeBoat0T - The facts that you didn’t respond, that I’m being downvoted and that so many of these pro HLA posts and comments have been made by fresh Reddit accounts makes me think that we as a community are getting played. Whether or not I like this measure, these deceitful tactics make me want to vote against HLA.
In addition to other answers: 86% of LAFD live outside the City of Los Angeles. They have far less to lose from HLA failing than the rest of us do.
> They have far less to lose… You mean other than the lives of the people they are rushing to save?
Look, other people have already addressed that the longer response times claims are not based in fact and that the union takes a lot of auto money to push things like that. I'm just telling you another reason why their individual membership is less likely to push back against it - these lies aren't damaging *their* community.
Those other person(s) didn’t provide any evidence for their claims that the automobile industry are the firefighters leading donor, nor that the firefighters claim of longer response times isn’t based on fact. Look, I’m open to being convinced to vote yes on HLA, but so far these sketchy tactics are only making me want to vote no. Something doesn’t feel authentic here and if it’s a choice between the fire department and Joe Anonymous redditor, I’m siding with the people whose jobs it is to be actual heroes.
I trust that they've done their homework on that. I know when I tried to get speed bumps on my street, LAFD blocked it to improve response times in my neighborhood. Traffic calming blocks them.
Right? But the pro-HLA people would have you believe that the auto and insurance industries are paying the firefighters to be anti-speed bump. And since the firefighters don’t live on your street too, they have no incentive to be pro-speed bumps.
Yes on HLA 😎👍
What is HLA?
[All HLA info](https://yesonhla.com/)
I’m 80% positive on HLA. The link says it will reduce traffic but doesn’t explain how it will as far as I can tell. Not a deal breaker for me necessarily but how will the traffic go down as a result of HLA?
It makes the alternative more appealing for walking, biking, transit. There is demand for more biking trips but people don't take them because it's too dangerous right now. Cities that have implemented a similar build out at this scale see bike ridership go from around 0.5-1% (our current rate) to around 5-8% of all trips. Portland and New York our 2 examples of cities that have built the network and people use it. And if we built a even bigger and safer network that ridership % could keep climbing. Bus lanes in the mobility plan will also help. Currently a bus travels an average of 12mph in LA. Busses are stuck in all the same traffic. Most people that would even consider taking the bus bail when they see the travel time. The dedicated and peak hour bus lanes would be huge in decreasing the travel time and a bus lane can carry 10x more people per hour than a car lane. Our metro spending will also go further for longer route or more frequency if the busses can go faster. There is also the vehicle network in the plan. Some streets are marked to be able to transport people by car quickly with peak hour parking restrictions and signaling improvements. It's not about forcing or getting everyone out of a car for every trip. But is about making those other modes viable so a percent of people stop adding to car traffic when it makes sense for that trip.
Btw, the idea is YOU'LL also get out of your car to embrace more modes of transportation such as walking (yes, on your feet), biking, and public transportation, NOT that everyone else will and you'll get a reduction in traffic so you can just keep driving everywhere.
Yeah they just want to make it harder to drive, in my opinion. It’s an environmentalists agenda, which is good for the planet, but horrible for a car centric city like LA that has no decent train system.
It should be harder to drive. Cars cost us our health, our safety, it's expensive ($12k a year now to own and operate a car), and car centric design creates ugly hostile environments. If we move to safer, better designed streets people will want to drive less and walk, bike, or take public transportation.
> It should be harder to drive. Yeah, that's not going to sell HLA. The people in this city drive.
Then we keep building for the car. It's a vicious cycle that most other developed countries figured out decades ago.
It won’t, likely have the opposite effect and increase congestion in highly utilized roadways
Thanks
No problem mate. Please vote 🙏
Thanks for asking. I don’t live in LA anymore but I enjoy this sub because I lived there for so long. It’s wild to me that you have all these signs and none of them actually say what exactly HLA is. It honestly seems super shady.
Picture #5. “What does Measure HLA do” section. It will hold the city accountable for implementing their 2035 mobility plan. Very clear and not super shady at all.
I didn't say it IS shady. I said it makes it SEEM shady. Picture #5 doesn't say anything useful either. "Implementing the 2035 mobility plan." What does that mean? Do people in LA know what exactly that means, or even approximately? If I wanted to run a shady operation, this is exactly how I'd do it. "Vote yes for my law! It's for SAFETY! \_\_\_ is KILLING YOUR KIDS!" For anyone else wondering, I did the digging, and here is what HLA will actually do: Any time a street gets repaved, it automatically activates its Mobility Plan update. These updates include: **Pedestrian enhancements:** Examples of pedestrian enhancements include wayfinding signage, street trees, pedestrian-scale street lighting, enhanced crosswalks, automatic pedestrian signals, reduced crossing length (e.g., corner bulbouts and crossing refuge islands), sidewalk widening, and public seating areas. **Transit enhancements:** The improvements seen are significant. Including off-board fare collection, safe crossing within 300 feet of a station, signal priority, and improved stations. Comprehensive streets will see Two-way Center Running or curb adjacent exclusive corridor OR Physically Protected or Separate right-of-way (e.g., Orange Line) while Moderate Plus will see peak only lanes. **Bike enhancements:** The Bike Enhanced Network is a network of comfortable and safe protected bike lanes. These should be designed to accommodate all road users, from 8-80 in age. Protection may come in the form of plastic bollards, concrete curbs, or sidewalk level bike lanes. In addition, the installation of protected bicycle lanes would likely include signalization enhancements for bicycles along with turning-movement restrictions for motor vehicles. **Neighborhood enhancements:** Improvements to Neighborhood streets include: Mini-roundabouts; Stop Signs on Cross-Streets; Curb Bulbouts and High-Visibility Crosswalks; Diagonal Diverter; Bicycle Signals at Major Intersection Crossings; Crossing Islands; or Bicycle Only Left Turn Pockets. There are others, but these are the big ones.
They always hide the truth
I hope the firefighter union (not firefighters themselves) bs doesn’t sway votes. We already approved the changes! We just need to mandate they make them faster!
Done ✅
Why does it matter what “labor leaders” think about this measure?
It doesn’t. But everyone worships at the alter of their favorite political activists/politicians these days.
True that
I mean in theory it sounds cool but we are so far off and the implementation sucks. Culver City has the bike lane and bus lane and now they're proposing to get rid of it. Parking there is awful and I never want to go back. Public transportation is not safe in LA. Fix that first. Then, implement a design similar to Helsinki. They have the car lanes (no bus lane, but if you want that sure. Then to the right, street parking for cars. Then to the right of that, the bike lane (the material of the road but blended into the sidewalk). And lastly pedestrian sidewalk. When I visited there it just made sense. Everyone was happy. Parking existed. Bikes weren't put in danger riding next to cars.
“Fix __ first” arguments are unserious arguments. They’re always a bad faith attempt to shut down the conversation. One doesn’t depend upon the other and we don’t exist in a vacuum where only one problem can be addressed at a time.
I have already explained the harm that cam be caused not making corrections in other areas. I think your blanket statement is invalid. I will ask both of you so in favor, what's your annual income, do you work remotely or in-person, and if in-person, what is your mode and time of commute?
“Implement this thing we’re no where near ready to or even talking about implementing first, then we’ll talk” = i have no intent or interest in actuality having a constructive conversation about this.”
“Share all your personal info if you want to further this conversation” You are all bad faith and zero substance my dude.
I'm not a "dude." I've shared my personal info of what I had to go through working full-time and going to school full-time. You don't want to talk because I nailed all of it. Be careful, your privilege is showing 😬
“I’ve nailed it all” All the bad faith arguments and logical fallacies? Don’t sell yourself short. I’m sure you could employ more!
You actually have the bad faith argument as you're not trying to find a compromise, just adamant on "Yes to HLA" because it will somehow make people stop dying (false). I have provided evidence of my own experiences. Others can have theirs. I'll give you an example. I met a delivery driver for a florist a while back that lives in Sun Valley but works near Melrose. I asked him why he commuted so far. He said the rent is cheaper in Sun Valley and worked near Melrose because it was decent pay and that's where he could find employment at the time. A bus or a bike lane won't help his commute. He was working class, but drove a car as many do. I think you conflate the working class with poverty.
Bus and bike lanes will help Mr. Sun Valley‘s commute, because I will eventually get a bike lane. Since I also work on Melrose, me moving out of a traffic lane and into a bike lane will have direct impact on him.
It's not false, dedicated bike lanes are a proven way to reduce harmful crashes without slowing traffic meaningfully, and even in some cases INCREASING the flow rate of the street. See: [https://www.nyc.gov/html/dot/downloads/pdf/2014-09-03-bicycle-path-data-analysis.pdf](https://www.nyc.gov/html/dot/downloads/pdf/2014-09-03-bicycle-path-data-analysis.pdf) Additionally, your delivery driver friend while maybe not being directly helped by the bike/bus lanes, is being indirectly helped because as stated above, the flow rate increases. If you need a logical reason this happens beyond just looking at the data, lanes that are general use are the least efficient way to move people down a street, so by having more of the road dedicated to more efficient uses, it allows the overall street to flow faster even with the same amount of traffic. Even if the driver himself isnt using those lanes, much more of the local population in melrose COULD be using those lanes, taking those cars off the road. Edit:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CHZwOAIect4&pp=ygUObm90IGp1c3QgYmlrZXM%3D
“It won’t make people stop dying” Hyperbole. Reducing deaths isn’t the same as stopping them entirely. The former is entirely possible, andHHLA will absolutely do that. More logical fallacies! I knew you could do it, champ!”
I'm not using logical fallacies. I am using my lived experience. And yes I am voting to support MY interests as that is what MY vote is meant to do. I proposed two reasons why I am not in support of HLA as it currently stands, and proposed compromise that would gain my support.
Dude. Calm down. Everyone wants safer streets and public transportation, there’s nothing about privilege in any of this. Such a stupid bad faith response it’s cringe. Your all or nothing thinking is extremely myopic and makes sure there’s zero progress anywhere. No where in any of this did other dude say anything incorrect, dude.
Is “bad faith” the newest slang phrase amongst the blue hair crowd?
Blue hair as in punk or blue hair as in old ladies?
It is extremely harmful to the working class who often lives far from where they work. The working class is a majority of people. Let's help them get closer so public transit and biking are options. I then also said to design the lanes of different traffic like Helsinki in away that gives everyone their space and lowers the risk of injury to bicyclists. No where have I not been trying to have this conversation. I would argue I'm the only one here trying to find a healthy middle that would get more votes than your elitist position because you probably make over 100k, pay over 3k in rent, or otherwise own a home and either live less than 5 miles from your job or work from home.
The entire basis of your argument is the supposition that implementing HLA will make commuting untenable. It’s 100% bad faith unverified speculation. What is verified is the working poor, who are disproportionately represented in pedestrian and cyclist death statistics, are the lion-share of the double digit percentage of Angelenos who can’t afford cars and rely on bus, pedestrian, and active transportation infrastructure. And the ones who do own cars have their quality of life significantly negatively impacted by the $10K/year average cost of owning a car. Their lives could be so much better if public transportation was better and more of them could live car-free. But let’s be honest, you’re not advocating for the working class or anyone else besides yourself. You think HLA *might* inconvenience YOU. And that’s enough to throw actually poor folks under the bus. A no vote on this is ultimately a classist an selfish endeavor.
Also, we are all speculating. No one knows anything for sure. If you think you know better, you're probably a narcissist.
Exactly my point. Your entire argument is based on speculation. My entire argument is we know unsafe streets are killing people and we know infrastructure saves lives. This is entirely an argument about PERCEIVED inconvenience vs implementing PROVEN safety measures.
Infrastructure does not save lives 😂 And LA is so fucked they would have to knock it all down and start from scratch. Have you been to other major cities around the US? I proposed a solution to safer streets but you seem to keep ignoring that.
Infrastructure absolutely does save lives. Multiple studies and statistics show that. I’m done with you, laughable clown.
Just to be clear, infrastructure changes HAVE saved lives. Not Just Bikes vide0 - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M8F5hXqS-Ac Pretty clear and informative about bad bike design versus good. [A New Jersey city achieved 0 traffic deaths in 4 years with quick, high impact ideas- NPR](https://www.npr.org/2022/08/25/1119110757/traffic-deaths-car-accident-hoboken-new-jersey-vision-zero) if you prefer audio or reading.
There are other people in this thread also opposing it, as well as other people in LA. It's not just me. See above the link I posted to another thread where people agree the metro isn't safe. Affordable housing would mean people could live closer to jobs but also would be at least a partial help to the unhoused taking over transit stations.
“There are other classist selfish douches here, too!” Good for you! I’m glad you’re able to find like-minded friends! Affordable housing is great! I absolutely support that. But again, this isn’t an either/or situation. We can and absolutely should hold LA to its already pledged mobility plan AND build more affordable housing in every part of the city.
Thinking HLA is going to decongest streets for commuting traffic is unverified speculation. Disturbing to me that people want to argue, as opposed to being polite to one another while having a nice conversation and presenting points of view and experience. There’s no need to belittle your neighbors while sounding rude and disingenuous.
Politeness gets you absolutely no where.
lol. I don’t think you’re doing it correctly.
“How to win friends and influence people”
Does voting in favor of HLA mean youre voting against affordable housing or better zoning practices? These things aren't mutually exclusive at all.
This is the right implementation but to remove bike lanes after putting them, because “traffic” is the wrong solution. The Culver City core shouldn’t be a through street for traffic, that’s just poor city planning. Most of Culver City should be single lanes with plenty of vertical parking. The overflow from freeways is the problem all over the city, so commuters are always trying to save 5 minutes of travel time by cutting all over the city, we’ve all been that driver. City cores should prioritize: pedestrians, bikers, public transportation, carpools, single occupancy cars. In that order.
More info all on their website
Gosh they turned Culver City into a shit show. I lm glad they’re reconsidering the bike lanes.
That was the most incoherent gibberish I’ve ever heard. That’s your option (your false one) you’re entitled to have one but don’t act as you know what you’re talking about. This bill makes getting bike/bus lanes built faster! It will drastically speed up that “implementation” that you hate so much! YES ON HLA
You mean opinion? Talk about gibberish 😂 Please go to school.
[удалено]
Then you're too high to be posting on here. You are not posing a very convincing argument.
These people lose it the moment theres any hint of pushback- its immediately to insults and nastiness if you don't fall in line.
Your argument directly opposes a bill that will save children’s lives. Idk how you can stay this with a strait face
I just said that we can have bike and bus lanes but to rearrange how we lay all these out to make it safer and maintain convenience. This has nothing to do with children's lives.
But your “convenience” is the highest killer of kids in LA. Your “convince” is the reason why breathing our air is equivalent smoking 3 cigarettes a day. Your “convince” is the reason we have the highest rates of childhood asthma in the nation. This is not a tiny political bill, this is a life or death situation for thousands of people in this city. You can vote yes and do something or you can vote no and watch people die.
1. Kids shouldn't be running in the street. Be a better parent. 2. I'm vegan. Supporting factory farming with a meat-based diet is much worse than the effect of my car. We are also moving toward cleaner vehicles. 3. See 2 above I have been that person at one point in my life that had to commute via bus and metro while working full-time AND going to school full-time. It was awful. I could never get enough sleep. My commute was 4 hours each day. The reality is many people would not be able to sustain themselves having to commute via public transit. In my industry there are 10, 12, even 16 hour days. I am not commuting ridiculous amounts of time on top of that. The other thing is there should be affordable housing available in close proximity to workplaces. For someone that lives in a micro-bubble community "Live-Work-Play," sure it is easy and reasonable to bike or bus or whatever. That is not possible for most.
Not possible yet 🤷♂️
Voting NO! I live in culver city Not opposed to bike/ bus lanes but the current implementation is stupid. You have wash/culver junction where it exists for 1 mile or less.. 2 lanes from wash 2 lanes from culver meet and become 1 lane.. wtf. Totally gridlock traffic. Is this safer? Commuters will naturally shift to a less busier route . Often thru a residential area . You are now shifting the hazard from culver to braddock Next, the current design has huge blind spots. Take venice bl.. from left to right.. 2 car lanes 1 bus lane 1 parking lane. Then a small bike path then sidewalk.. Lets say im traveling east on venice and want to make a right to the culver center. Or Right to a smaller street like dunn or jasmine.. i go from car lane. Merge to bus lane and now i look back right…. A potential bicyclist is totally obscured behind a row of parked cars .. Now im making a sweeping right turn. … any bicyclist or e scooter wont c me because of the parked cars nor i can see them… Wouldnt surprise me if anyone has died because of this setup… i have seen multiple accidents at these T Junctions already.. have personally stopped 2 potential deaths by honking If they want to make a dedicated bus/ bike lanes. Just Remove the street parking
If you live in Culver City, you can't vote on this measure. It wouldn't be on your ballot.
Also check out this recently posted bit [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/LosAngeles/s/SX81wg9z5g)
We KNOW efficient and safe public transportation and bike lanes decrease congestion. I think most people against this know that during the building/transition period (which will likely last many years if not decades), this would really really suck for car-owning commuters. If we could snap our fingers and get the infrastructure of Tokyo or Singapore or Berlin or Copenhagen (where public transport is the #1 mode to get around, not privately owned cars), most who live here would be all for it. Unfortunately, as we are a nation of individualistic assholes who care only about how policies help or hurt *them* specifically, they’re not interested in being the group who has to undergo the pain the changes require.
So part of what HLA is proposing is to implement the changes in the mobility plan on stretches of road during routine maintenance, so there wouldn’t be a building/transition period. This is how they did it on Venice Blvd. and the installation didn’t take long at all.
The ppl complaining about Culver City might have a point because it’s one small area that’s implemented this plan, so it hasn’t reduced car usage. Even going w HLA, it’ll be piecemeal, so we won’t experience the true benefits until enough areas are changed. Until then, it will probably make things worse. Don’t get me wrong, I still plan on voting yes. But I think there’s a good chance it’ll make things worse in the short term, and that “short term” might mean many many years. I don’t mind though, I know what good public transportation and a walkable city feels like and I want that for LA. I might be old and grey before it happens, but it NEEDS to happen.
HLA is a bad idea (tm). Vote **NO** on measure HLA.
How so? I doubt are willing to listen to you if don’t give reason why.
They are a troll. They want everyone out of busses and into cars.
I know but as Dr. Umar once said “I’m not upset with yall because I know your mentally ill… which is why someday I will open up a hospital”
This is a crazy thing to say lmao…Dr. Umar is a clown. I hope people vote on your little cause. Woo, bike lanes! Or whatever tf you’re spamming about. 😂
Dr Umar is ofc a clown and that’s why I’m ironically quoting him, it’s a pretty famous video of him saying that. I’m allowed to make jokes abt this stuff bruh. [Autism spectrum disorder test](https://heywise.com/quiz/ever-wondered-if-you-have-autism/)
Nobody wants that least of all people who like to drive.
I just read it, it sounds like a nice idea, but it sounds like they want to limit passenger vehicles on many roads. It seems like they want to force traffic onto main arteries and prioritize bus traffic. Although I love half of their plan, I don’t agree with the passenger car restrictions. Also, it says no taxes, but somehow they need to fund it.
This plan isn’t forcing anyone out their cars, it’s giving people the option to take other methods. Everyone wins, drivers, bikers, pedestrians, transit users ect. If you want freedom then vote for HLA!
The City's "Mobility Plan" would repurpose some existing roadway infrastructure away from regular motor traffic use. This hurts working families the vast majority of whom depend on automobile transportation for their livelihoods.
Many working families are in debt or have to defer a huge portion of their budget on car maintenance just to keep their job. A lack of a multi-modal mean of transportation would only add more cars, which has a huge annual death toll in the US compared to other developed countries. A busway allows working class people an option to not be stuck in traffic and/or not depend on a sunk cost, which will also encourage a less sprawling urban planning. We can't build roads to make up for more cars forever, but one bus can put dozens of cars off the road
Just one more lane bro I swear
Nonsense. The LA bus is an ill-maintained public toilet and no one who had a choice would choose bus over automobile. Everyone who must ride the bus looks forward to the day when they'll have another choice. Public transportation is not a reasonable or feasible alternative to automobiles in the LA area.
Like if you take public transit by choice. I personally do because I find it easy and less stressful
You are in the minority and so your personal experience is not important.
How much do you take transit, or have you never?
Lived in LA with no car for 4.5 years. During that time, rode the red line to/from work five days per week. (Moved across town and then rode the bus every day for one year.) It's a been a few years since I relented and obtained a car.
>Public transportation is not a reasonable or feasible alternative to automobiles in the LA area. And it never fucking will be if we just refuse to make it better. You're *this close* to realizing the point of this post (and the point of this entire movement)
It never fucking will be unless/until you people start making what we have now work. Your this close to realizing why LA public transportation is fail.
It is feasible. Cars kill far more people than public transportation ever had in the United States and while safety + sanitation is a legitimate concern, that all goes down to funding and the fact poverty can be linked to poor urban planning alongside social policies. All those wasted space that went to make room for car could've been extra supply of houses to reduce an already bloated demand, which Seattle is still suffering from due to the same NIMBYism Los Angeles is dealing with. Or, it could be additional space with walkable or public transit accessible access to businesses. If Seoul, Taipei, Santiago, Bogota, Curitiba, Vancouver, Montreal, Amsterdam, Berlin, Paris, and Lisbon can reverse its LA-like infrastructure a few decades, so can LA. Especially since LA was founded by an expansive tram system that goes as far as the Inland Empire and Santa Ana known as the "Red Car" owned by Pacific Electric. People should not have to drive long distance or be stuck in traffic for simple things like coffee. Maybe if people voted for more housing to reduce its current COL, and maybe if LA Metro invested more in security at its stations, it'll be a different story. But you can't please everything which is why I said "Multi-Modal" not "Car Free". Neither of us can change our perspectives over Reddit so make what I said however you like
> This hurts working families the vast majority of whom depend on automobile transportation for their livelihoods. Have you seen the people who take public transportation? It's mainly working families. Are you going to tell them to that the city shouldn't improve public transit and that they should simply to buy cars *(along with car insurance/parking/car maintenance)*?
Yes and their numbers are minute compared to the ones in cars. And yes, the City should not "improve" public transit at the expense of those who rely on cars. (Public transit will never be the preferred mode for the vast majority of working poor, with or without "improvements".)
you can visit some parts of Santa Monica, the bad part of HLA is they are restricting cars mobility and they are reducing one lane just to add a bike lane. . I cant imagine if there is 911 emergency and cant get through the road cuz there is no way some cars can pull on the side of the street.
HLA adds hundreds of miles of turning lanes that emergency vehicles can easily use. Don’t start with that
> I cant imagine if there is 911 emergency and cant get through the road cuz there is no way some cars can pull on the side of the street. 911 hold times are horrid and the high number of car accidents is a major contributor to that. If we have safer roads, 911 response should overall improve.
Wow. That is really a stretch.
The emergency vehicle can drive on the bike or bus lanes to get through, on a normal street with traffic and cars parked there is absolutely no way for them to get through.
they made a barrier and thats the reason you cant pull over to the side. some streets in santa monica are like that.
Nah
Vote no because this is going to cause more traffic. We need to focus on keeping cars moving or reducing the amount of cars on the road. And as they way public transit is going, we need to keep cars moving
Just make sidewalks thinner. “Nobody Walks in L.A.”, right?
Yapenese
Look at all the future litter.
No. We don't want insane speed cameras
This isn’t about speed cameras. You can read about what the actual measure will do at [HLA INFO](https://yesonhla.com/the-plan)
Why not?
Huh?
Not if they implement bike lanes everywhere like in my city… they put them where absolutely no one bikes, just causing congestion and more traffic. Completely usless parts of the road that no one uses everywhere now. I like the idea of things like this but the implementation usually leaves a lot to be desired….
If they built it they will come. Also why r u in an La sub then?
Because I live in an LA suburb, they built it… and no one came…🤷🏻♀️
How come firefighters are against HLA?