Take the online survey for the L.A. River Path Project

A new online survey has been posted for the Los Angeles River Path Project, which will close the eight-mile gap between Elysian Valley and Vernon along the current walking, biking and skating lane. Check out the above video that provides a good overview of the project and the area it will serve.

This, I think, is a really cool project that will ultimately allow for walk-bike-skate connection between the San Fernando Valley, downtown Los Angeles and Long Beach — and many neighborhoods in between. The path will also be a great compliment to the ongoing effort to revitalize the L.A. River, which aims to add more green and habitat to the concrete channel. 

No surprise: this is a challenging corridor (see this earlier Source post). There is a wide variety of existing infrastructure along the river, including train tracks, power lines, buildings, bridges and other obstacles. As part of the ongoing planning process, Metro staff are developing a number of alternatives. Community input is vital to help Metro narrow that list. We already know from public feedback received last fall that safety and access are critically important.

The survey offers graphics and video to help explain some of the alignment and access alternatives. Some are certainly more challenging than others — for example, putting the path at the bottom of the channel gets it closer to the river and nature but means there would be times of the year it would likely be flooded and closed. The survey is comprehensive and explains the pros and cons of the different approaches in the northern, central and southern sections of the project.

Another incentive to take the survey: participants have the option of entering a raffle for $100 Amazon gift card!

In terms of the big picture, Metro staff — with your input — plans to ask the Metro Board of Directors later this year to adopt four project alternative alignments. Once that happens, the project’s formal environmental studies will begin. The project has $365 million in funding from Measure M and the hope is to begin construction by 2023. For more info, please see the project’s home page. 

8 replies

  1. Just north of the North Broadway bridge, the retaining wall on the west (Elysian Park) side of the river is covered by a Southern Pacific RR advertising sign (probably from the 1920s), white letters on a black background, ‘8 trains daily to SF’. When the walkway/bikeway is built,I’d like to see the mural preserved, even though there’s now only one train to SF, actually to Oakland. With the increased public access, there’ll be a problem with vandalism & graffiti, too.

  2. A much better survey than many Metro surveys. It allows a gradation of input, not an all or nothing. Also, breaking down the project by zones is good.

  3. Im curious to see how underserviced this “Rail to River” project will be managed after the contractor that builds it walks away with all of the cash. Just like EVERY project thats been completed after 2000. Metro has grown, but management is terrible, and customer service is rude on initial contact, with ZERO follow ups. Someone was smoking meth in my elevator today while children were on their way to school..

    Not taking the survey. Its a waste of time.

    • I used to support this concept. After what I have seen, I would have to agree in part with what you say. Like the state’s Bullet Train, billions of dollars will be spent to serve only the interests of certain contractors, a few special interest groups, and almost nobody else. I have yet to see a finished product that justifies such an expenditure. I am also concerned about safety issues when the finished project doesn’t meet expected utilization. I think such large sums of tax money could be much better spent.

      I started the survey, then came to the conclusion that the project, as envisioned just isn’t worth it. Hope the folks in power will reconsider.

  4. OK; Greening, amenities, connectivity (GAC)… is the city chant.
    We have the highest bike and accident rate in the nation. As an ex-biker I know how dangerous.
    The reality is that LA is officially the most under-parked city in the nation (green parks) and the purpose of LA River bike paths is MASSIVE DEVELOPMENT per LA Times … up to nearly a million units. (Count on ‘endless ‘more’) DEVELOPMENT IS THE LARGEST PART OF THE CITY INCOME. The projection is to build more than 750,000 several years ago – now a million? (units and much more). That was some time back. That will produce around 1.5 million more cars. Most experienced persons say much more.
    HOWEVER – PER THE CITY, ‘THE ROADS ARE FULL’ – NOW -.
    What to do? City solution is …; ASPHALT LA RIVER NATURE PATHS EVEN WHERE THEY DON’T FIT.

    ONE; POLICE; ‘You will be flooded with transients’ (on drugs) NOT HOMELESS – TRANSIENTS DON;T WANT A HOME BECAUSE THEY TAKE DRUGS. Picked up by the box full during an official ‘clean-up’
    TWO; The State guidelines were ‘It will be necessary to make a separate path for pedestrians. The city fought that and got them to change that phrase to;’ It may be beneficial to make a separate path for pedestrians’. … (In some areas that can only be 2′ wide). Really? Dogs on a 2′, path? (MANY) Wheelchairs are wider than 2′ and so are baby carriages. Joggers can be hit – bikers say ‘You cannot hear bikes coming’. What if a jogger, or a family or ??? step ‘out of line’?
    Our official community groups are outraged. You should be too. To bad – I lived on a bike – where it was safe.
    But what about everybody else who frankly massively outweigh bikers. It’s a very small constituency and age group. Look it up. Joggers, dog walkers, senior nature lovers, kids enjoying nature etc. etc. massively out-weigh bikers. Recreation bikers (I’m one) do not like asphalt – ‘Oh no’ ‘Not asphalt’ Was their comment.
    But then it’s not for them. Of course they can use an asphalt path but they would have to bike single file to avoid being hit by lone commuter bikers (usually ‘lone’ – shopping is the city goal here).
    Again; it’s for commuter biking to get cars off the road to make room for massively more cars from massive development.
    Time to ‘move’ from LA. And what will be left? Even more crowded roads and far fewer nature paths for the vastly larger number of LAers who want and need them. ( Or that are safe to use. (in ‘key’ areas).
    Thats’ what California State guidelines before the ‘all powerful’ LA City and developers want.
    Fight for nature – not development.
    K