If you’ve ever crept down Fountain Avenue at rush hour, you know the street isn’t “dangerous” because it lacks bike lanes, it’s dangerous because it’s already choked with cars trying to get somewhere. Yet council candidates appealing to the powerful bike activists keep floating the same idea: carve out lanes for bicycles on a corridor where barely anyone rides.
The billionaire-bankrolled bike activists call Fountain “a perfect candidate” for a road diet. Residents call it what it is: a vital artery. And that’s the real story across Los Angeles and California: when politicians put bike paint over car lanes, traffic slows, businesses suffer, emergency vehicles get trapped, and sooner or later the lanes are quietly ripped back out.
Pushing Recreation with Lies About Street Safety
Many Angelenos feel that city streets should prioritize cars, not bicycles. They argue that bikes are primarily recreational vehicles with minimal commuter use, making bike lanes an inefficient use of road space.
In car-centric cities like Los Angeles, dedicating lanes to bicycles can worsen traffic congestion, hurt local businesses, and waste public funds.
This report examines data and case studies from Los Angeles and other California cities to examine the position that bike lanes should be removed or not installed in the first place, keeping streets open for vehicular transit.
Minimal Transportation Value of Bicycles
In Los Angeles, bicycles account for an extremely small share of daily commuting. Only about 1% of Angeleno workers commute by bicycle, whereas the vast majority drive to work (on the order of 78% or more)[1].
This low usage suggests that bikes are not a significant transportation mode in the city’s economy. Indeed, most bike riding in the U.S. is for leisure, not work – nationally only roughly 9% of bicycle trips are for commuting to work, while well over half (around 57%) are for social or recreational purposes[2].
In a sprawling, car-dependent region like Southern California, cycling is largely a recreational hobby rather than a practical way to move people or goods. Unlike cars, bikes cannot easily carry families, groceries, or work equipment, underscoring their limited economic utility.
Given these realities, dedicating scarce road space to bike lanes that serve only a sliver of travelers makes little sense from a transportation planning standpoint.
Economic Costs and Low Benefits of Bike Lanes
Critics contend that bike lanes “make no economic sense” because their benefits are small compared to their costs. Building and maintaining bike infrastructure can cost millions, yet often only a handful of cyclists use these lanes.
For example, a protected bike lane installed on Roxbury Drive in Beverly Hills attracted on average just 30–35 cyclists per day (with a maximum of 50 in a day)[3]. Residents pointed out a “lack of need for a bike lane” there, given such low usage[4]. Business owners also report negative economic impacts from bike lanes.
In Redwood City, a sandwich shop owner saw a sharp drop in customers after street parking was eliminated for new bike lanes. He observed “maybe one biker a day” using the bike lane, while his monthly customer count plummeted from roughly 3,900 (in May 2023) to about 2,400 a year later[5][6]. His patrons complained they “couldn’t find parking,” directly hurting sales[7]. This case highlights how replacing car parking or lanes with bike lanes can deter customers and reduce local business revenue.
Citywide, the loss of sales means lower tax receipts and economic activity – a high price to pay for infrastructure serving so few. Additionally, when bike lane projects are later removed (as we’ll see is common), the money spent installing them is essentially wasted.
In Culver City, for instance, the city obtained a $1.96 million grant to create protected bike/bus lanes in 2021, only to remove those lanes two years later amid backlash[8][9]. Now the regional transit authority is seeking to revoke about $435,000 of that grant funding, meaning taxpayers could be on the hook for costly reversals[8][10].
From an economic perspective, bike lanes in such car-oriented locales often fail any cost-benefit test – they serve almost no one, yet impose real costs on businesses, drivers, and public budgets.
Worsened Traffic Congestion
Los Angeles is infamous for gridlock, and opponents of bike lanes argue that converting car lanes to bike use only makes congestion worse. Drivers in L.A. lost an average of 89 hours to traffic delays in 2023, one of the worst congestion levels in the nation[11]. This traffic is not just an annoyance – it has a huge economic cost (an estimated $8.3 billion city-wide in lost time in 2023 in L.A.)[11][12].
With such severe congestion, removing even one car lane for a bike route can have outsized impacts. A case in point is the 2017 “road diet” on several Playa del Rey streets on L.A.’s Westside. In that pilot project, city officials eliminated car lanes and added protected bike lanes on key connectors (like Pershing Drive, Jefferson Blvd, and Culver Blvd) to calm traffic.
The result was an outcry from drivers in the area and neighboring cities, as commutes became dramatically longer. Residents reported that travel times through the area had “doubled or even tripled” after the bike lanes went in[13]. Cut-through traffic flooded neighboring streets, and frustration boiled over.
A recall campaign was launched against the councilman who implemented the road diet. Even he was forced to admit the changes were “outright hated” by the community[14].
Within months, Los Angeles officials reversed the road diet: they restored the car lanes and removed or narrowed the bike lanes to relieve the congestion[15]. This episode demonstrated that taking away auto capacity in a city as car-reliant as L.A. can lead to immediate gridlock and public fury.
The Los Angeles Times noted that despite recent efforts to add bike lanes and transit, the city’s roads “remain swollen” with traffic[16]. In New York City, congestion also worsened when street space was reduced for bike lanes and outdoor dining, showing that the phenomenon isn’t limited to Los Angeles[17].
For those who prioritize efficient transportation, the conclusion is clear: road capacity should be reserved for motor vehicles, which move the vast majority of people. Idle bike lanes often sit nearly empty beside jam-packed car lanes – a visual symbol of misallocated street space.
Keeping streets for cars would ensure that road capacity is used by the mode that actually keeps the city moving.
Public Backlash and Removal of Bike Lanes
Far from being universally welcomed, bike lane projects in California have frequently met with fierce opposition – to the point of being scaled back or removed entirely.
Los Angeles-area communities have led a backlash against bike lanes, insisting that safety measures not come at the expense of drivers. We’ve already seen how L.A. quickly backpedaled on the Playa del Rey road diets.
Another high-profile reversal occurred in Culver City, an L.A. suburb, where a 1.3-mile protected bike corridor downtown was installed in 2021 and then removed by 2023.
The City Council voted 3–2 to end the “Move Culver City” project after constant complaints that it snarled traffic by cutting major boulevards down to one car lane each way[18]. Residents and commuters found the congestion intolerable, clearly valuing car throughput over dedicated bike/bus lanes. Nearby cities have responded similarly.
Beverly Hills in 2024 opted to remove a short protected bike lane on South Roxbury Drive after a trial period. Neighbors had protested that the lane (next to Roxbury Park) was unnecessary and even confusing – some drivers felt it posed a “danger to motorists” or made parking more difficult, for minimal benefit[19]. The city’s study confirmed the lane’s low usage (≈30 cyclists a day) and no clear safety improvement[3].
As a result, Beverly Hills will be restoring curbside parking and reverting that stretch to a car-priority design, allowing cyclists only in a shared lane or routing them through the park[20].
Even in smaller towns like South Pasadena, bike lanes have proven divisive. In 2023, South Pasadena installed a mere 0.6-mile bike lane as part of a “Slow Streets” initiative – yet it provoked enough neighborhood opposition that the City Council initially voted to remove it[21][22].
Some residents claimed the new bike lane actually made the street less safe, alleging that cars now sped past cyclists dangerously[22]. As one South Pasadena councilmember observed, “bike lane politics is splitting communities around the state,” with both sides dug in[23].
Indeed, across California there have been multiple instances of bike lanes being abandoned, scaled back, or fiercely resisted. These reversals are a potent indicator that a large segment of the public – especially drivers and nearby residents – do not see bike lanes as worth the trade-offs.
Instead of a seamless “Complete Streets” rollout, many cities are finding that drivers will fight to reclaim road space, and officials ultimately bow to the pressure.
Image: The city of Beverly Hills is removing this short protected bike lane (marked by green bollards along the curb) on Roxbury Drive to restore more parking and road space for cars[3][4].
Conclusion: Keep Streets Focused on Vehicle Safety
From the perspective of motorists and skeptics, the evidence is overwhelming that urban streets function best when reserved for cars, trucks, and transit – not bicycles. In Los Angeles and other California cities, bikes remain a fringe mode of travel, mostly used for recreation rather than essential transportation.
Forcing bike lanes onto busy roads has often led to increased congestion, longer commutes, and public outcry, all for facilities that few people use daily.
The economic downsides are real as well: businesses lose customers when parking disappears, and taxpayers foot the bill for bike projects that may ultimately be removed. Rather than continue this failed experiment, it would be more prudent to invest in improving traffic flow, road maintenance, and car parking – the infrastructure that serves the 99% of trips that are not by bicycle[1][2].
Bicycles can certainly be enjoyed on trails, parks, and quieter side streets for recreation, but critical arteries and commerce centers should remain the domain of automobiles, which are the engines of the local economy. In a city built around the car, attempting to impose bike-centric redesigns has proven impractical and even counterproductive. The backlash across Southern California sends a clear message: keep the bike riding as a weekend pastime, and keep our streets moving with the vehicles that truly drive our economy.
References & Sources
- Los Angeles commute mode share data (U.S. Census Bureau)[1]
- National bike trip purpose statistics (Pucher et al., Transportation Research)[2]
- Culver City removes “Move Culver City” bike lanes (LA Streetsblog)[9][8]
- Beverly Hills Roxbury Drive bike lane usage and removal (Urbanize LA)[3][4]
- Redwood City business impact from bike lane on El Camino Real (Palo Alto Daily Post)[5][6]
- Playa del Rey road diet reversal and traffic impacts (Los Angeles Times)[13][24]
- South Pasadena Grand Avenue bike lane controversy (LAist)[22][23]
- Los Angeles traffic congestion hours/cost (Inrix via Stacker)[11][12]
- Quote on LA roads “remain swollen” despite bike lanes (Stacker)[16]
[1] 1.0 percent of Workers Commute by Bike in Los Angeles
https://www.census.gov/newsroom/archives/2014-pr/cb14-r04.html
[2] published.PDF
[3] [4] [19] [20] Beverly Hills to remove protected bike lane next to Roxbury Park | Urbanize LA
https://la.urbanize.city/post/beverly-hills-remove-protected-bike-lane-next-roxbury-park
[5] [6] [7] Bike lanes are reducing parking on El Camino, hitting business hard – Palo Alto Daily Post
[8] [9] [10] Metro Committee Approves Revoking $435K Culver City Grant due to Bike Lane Removal – Streetsblog Los Angeles
[11] [12] [16] [17] These Cities Had the Worst Traffic in 2023 | Stacker
https://stacker.com/stories/transportation/these-cities-had-worst-traffic-2023
[13] [14] [15] [24] L.A. reworks another ‘road diet,’ restoring car lanes in Playa del Rey – Los Angeles Times
https://www.latimes.com/local/lanow/la-me-ln-mike-bonin-road-diet-20171003-story.html
[18] Culver City bike lane project axed due to public backlash – CCAM-TAC
https://www.ccam-tac.org/news/culver-city-bike-lane-project-axed-due-to-public-backlash
[21] [22] [23] South Pasadena Keeps Bike Lane After Hearing Support From The Community | LAist
This is the civic discourse that we should be having on this and many topics. Instead, there is communications bullying and ideological intransigence emanating from city hall which has its genesis in the incestuousness of the clique developed by Abbe Land, as reported in the previous piece on this site. This piece sets out important facts about the history and usage of bike lanes that get drowned out with the yelling and the screaming (all-too-often in sycophantic anonymity!) in the debate. There are clearly options that are not being given a full discussion, including the three simple, fast, and relatively cheap options presented by David Wilson at a recent meeting. Why is there such opposition to sensible, workable, and reliable safety measures for all?