Atwater at odds with neighbors over proposed road diet for Glendale-Hyperion bridge

ATWATER VILLAGE —  A proposal to reduce the number of traffic lanes on the Glendale-Hyperion bridge has met with different reactions from neighborhoods on opposite sides of the L.A. River span.  While the neighborhood councils of Silver Lake and Los Feliz have voted in favor of  squeezing motor vehicles into three lanes instead of the existing four,  the Atwater Village Neighborhood Council has come out against the lane reduction  and so-called road diet as part of a $50 million improvement project. “We don’t want to hinder access to our neighborhood,” said Sergio Lambarri, the Atwater council’s point person on the bridge project.

Atwater leaders have launched a campaign in favor of keeping the four lanes after the majority of members of a bridge advisory committee voted earlier this month in favor reducing the number of lanes to  accommodate the addition of bike lanes and sidewalks on both sides of the bridge, a proposal that has been labeled Exhibit 3. (see exhibit below) That  proposal would include two southbound lanes for motor vehicles traveling  into Silver Lake and Los Feliz but only one lane for Atwater-bound traffic.

“Some organizations see this as an opportunity to lock in a configuration that would eliminate a vehicle traffic lane for generations for their own purposes,” Lambarri said in an email. “Others, myself included, realize that this is an important boulevard for passenger cars, and emergency vehicles, along with delivery and service trucks.”

Lambarri, who also served on the advisory committee,  takes issue with recent stories that said the advisory committee has come out in favor reducing lanes.  He said the committee simply took a straw vote on the issue but did not make any official recommendation to the Department of Public Works and Bureau of Engineering. Lambarri and the Awater council have come out in favor of a proposal called Exhibit 1, which keeps all four traffic lanes, adds two bike lanes but includes only a single sidewalk on one side of the bridge.  “It’s the most logical thing to eliminate,” Lambarri said of the sidewalk, which he said are lightly used.

But fellow advisory board member Matthew Mooney, who voted in favor of reducing traffic lanes,  described the committee’s vote as “final” after months of meetings, dialogue and the review of  studies that showed that eliminating a lane would not have any significant impact on traffic congestion.

“It would be a shame that those who oppose a livable bridge can simply lounge about in a recliner of ideology and prop their feet upon a footstool of the status quo and direct the entire show casually in robes and slippers on hunches and personal opinions,” Mooney said via email. “Myself and those fighting with me love Los Angeles and we are committed to making this bridge a jewel spanning across a restored LA river where all can cross in dignity and respect.”

The opinions and votes by the neighborhood councils and advisory committee, however, might be overshadowed by the views of the area’s two city councilmen, Tom LaBonge of Council District 4 and Mitch O’Farrell of Council District 13, when the city makes a final decision about which approach to take for the entire project.

LaBonge has expressed support for keeping all four lanes, according to Lambarri and another member of the advisory committee. O’Farrell, however, is not making any comments” until he reviews the full study and hears from his constituents on this issue,” said his spokesman, Tony Arranaga.

Exhibit 1 included four traffic lanes, two bike lanes and one sidewalk | City of L.A.

Exhibit 1 included four traffic lanes, two bike lanes and one sidewalk | City of L.A.

Exhibit 2: Three traffic lanes, two bike lanes and one sidewalk | City of L.A.

Exhibit 2: Three traffic lanes, two bike lanes and one sidewalk | City of L.A.

Exhibit 3: Three traffic lanes, two bike lanes, two sidewalks | City of L.A.

Exhibit 3: Three traffic lanes, two bike lanes, two sidewalks | City of L.A.

Eastsider Ads


  1. Stop this road diet madness!!! There are so few cyclists in NELA. I see vitally none in the bike lanes on Rowena, Colorado and York. It’s ridiculous. Pure fantasy. Thank goodness they didn’t get away with it on Fig.

    • So you are on this bridge 24/7 and counting how many cyclists use this bridge? Bravo! Bravo! Get a life and a clue!

    • So few cyclists? what the fuck are you talking about dude?
      You must be from out of town

    • I’m an NELA native and drive and walk through all of those routes on a regular basis and EastsideArts is correct. The bike lane on Rowena is always empty just about every time I drive to the cleaners on Hyperion. Including on weekends. I see more pedestrians on the “lightly-used” sidewalk on the Hyperion bridge than I ever do cyclists. The York bike lane is also always empty every time I visit family in HP or just go to Super A for specific items. To be clear, I own two bikes (road and mountain). I’m in favor of creating cyclist-friendly city streets but advocates consistently overstate the need, bungle placement, and do anything but ease traffic congestion where it’s needed most. Not to mention educating their own constituency about basic traffic laws, e.g., helmets are mandatory and even cyclists must STOP at “Stop” signs. Particularly at cross streets and whether or not they are only(>) making a harmless right turn. Thus far, the bike lane lobby is promoting an agenda without a need and only alienate potential supporters with their pie-in-the-sky vision or shrill hysterics when they don’t get what they demand. Cedillo’s credibility has increased among his constituents who appreciate that somebody is willing and able to dismiss the entitled and self-righteous bike-lane lobby. Not a very appealing or sympathetic profile for a presumably community-based group.

      • Unless you drive to the cleaners 24/7 your sample size is too small. Just because you go to the cleaner 3-4 times a week, doesn’t mean there aren’t people who use the bike lanes during the other times you don’t use the bridge!.

        • Based on your own “24/7” standard, seeing cyclists on Rowena and Hyperion is about as rare as a mountain lion sighting in Griffith Park. If one has to install trail-cams to get a glimpse of a cyclist using these routes, there must not be an urgent or even remote need for bike lanes to accommodate this endangered species.

          • I’ll type slower, so somebody as stupid as you can understand!

            Just because somebody travels on the bridge once or twice a week or a few times a week and doesn’t see anybody on bikes, doesn’t mean jack.

            Did you understand or do I still need to type slower?

      • Why dont you ride your bike to the cleaners ? You probably roll through drive-thrus too !

      • Helmets are mandatory for *minors* in CA. Bicycle helmets are not mandatory for adults (over 18).

        I think the advocates have been perfectly reasonable, working thru well-known city processes. Of course, 10% of anyone (drivers, cyclists, …) are assholes — I don’t think bicycle advocates are really that much different. (In case you wonder, I myself am 10% asshole.)

      • I work as a food courier, delivering food to peoples’ homes by bike. Those bike lanes are a godsend! I’d probably be roadkill. If I drove I’d be adding more traffic, and I’d be more fatter.

      • I always see lots of cars on all those routes, while sitting in traffic. I too would ride a bike if I didn’t need to take tools and gear with me. But alas! 🙂

    • “virtually none”

      I’m sure no confirmation bias is involved in your assessment.

    • The Road Diet on Rowena Ave is a joke, motorcycles and a guy in a motorized wheel chair use it more then bikes, at the same time traffic jams on Rowena ave have gotten so bad that during parts of the day i can leave the house. not to mention the increased pollution of all these cars sitting at idle.

      adding the lane diet to the bridge is as disaster, it is already hard enough for 56 (those in the area know who 56 is) to get threw the heavy traffic so lets add more. is everyone in the city council smoking crack?

    • Stop worrying about traffic stopping in Atwater. They almost never stop on their way to the mall, More walking and biking business would come over from Los Feliz and Silver Lake As it is now the walk or bike are so dangerous it discourages coming to Atwater. We live in Los Feliz and love the village but getting there by foot is disgusting by bridge and downright dangerous. It is easier to get to Elysian Valley by bikeway and we have been spending more time there.

  2. I use this bridge all the time. It seems to me that the car lanes are used frequently and the pedestrian walkway is not. I’m sure that the walkway would increase usage if it was on both sides, but I don’t think that should happen at the expense of a car lane. It seems that afternoon rush hour traffic would be terrible if there were only 1 northbound lane.

    • the pedestrian walkways are not because its dangerous. thats why we need to make this bridge to the LA River and Atwater safe for all.

  3. Leave it as is. I agree stop with this stupid road diet. bicyclists hardly ever use their assigned bike lanes and hog up the road ways anyway!?

    • If a bicyclist is “hogging” the roadway, it’s likely due to the lack of a bike lane. Taking the lane is safer than snaking between parked and moving cars.

  4. No one walks across the bridge now because its unsafe – the sidewalks are pinched to less than two feet wide under Waverly Dr. and there are not proper crosswalks. But most of the vehicle trips across this bridge are local ones between some of our nicest most walkable neighborhoods of Atwater, Los Feliz and Silverlake – trips that could easily be walked or biked if this bridge was safe. The original design intent of this historic bridge was to create a nice place for a stroll to enjoy the river and mountain views and included viewing belvederes and broad sidewalks on both sides. Alternative 3, with sidewalks on both sides, will be the best for businesses and local real estate values.

    • Sidewalks yes, removal of traffic lane no. But, do you really think people will regularly walk from the Rowena/Hyperion/Griffith area of Silverlake to Atwater for dinner? Or ?

      • Some people will, yes. Why wouldn’t they? If it was a lovely evening (LA reputedly has some of those), and the bridge felt safe for walking, I suspect that many folks would be enticed to give it a try.

        If you removed the sidewalk from one side of Sunset through Silverlake or one side of Glendale through Atwater Village, or one side of Vermont through Los Feliz, I suspect you’d begin to understand the impact of forcing pedestrians to make roundabout trips.

      • Few people walk on it because of bad design that makes it too narrow in parts. There are belvederes on the bridge for pedestrians. It’s a scenic area connecting two very walkable neighborhoods. People will walk it if they make it safer and more pleasant.

      • The most common pedestrians on the bridge are high school students. They should have a safe way of getting from Atwater to school.

        • I remember driving into Atwater Village years ago and watching Marshall students crossing the street at a very treacherous spot, where the bridge ends and cars heading north on Glendale Blvd. prepare to merge with cars traveling north from the bridge. There was no crosswalk or stop sign for them. It seemed unfair that the students had to make such a dangerous crossing, and I’m surprised that nobody (to my knowledge) was injured there.

  5. The 85th percentile speed on the bridge was measured by BOE to be 45 miles per hour. That means that 1 in 8 drivers are zipping along the bridge at more than 10 miles per hour in excess of the posted speed limit of 35 miles per hour. It also means that easily more than half of all car drivers are going faster than the posted speed limit. The likelihood of a car hitting a pedestrian not only increases when it’s going that much faster (because of the need for faster reaction time), but the likelihood of any collision with a pedestrian being fatal is increased as well. Sure, you can blame pedestrians for not looking out for traffic, but try doing that the next time a little kid accidentally steps off the sidewalk for a moment or a senior citizen falls down and then gets plowed over by a car going 45 miles per hour. It’s because of this connection between speed and safety that the addition of bike lanes along York Blvd, which has brought traffic speeds down to the posted speed limit, has served to reduce traffic incidents while also supporting various modes of transportation along an important community artery.

    Just think for a moment about the fact that LA sees as many people killed in car accidents every year as who are killed on the streets in gunfire or by other weapons. Yeah, it sucks to not be able to drive as fast as you want when you want all the time, but this isn’t just about you shaving 10 more seconds off your trip across that bridge or 15 seconds off your commute to work – it’s about public safety, and recognizing that thousands of cars being a bit more mindful every day goes a long way to saving that random pedestrian or cyclist that might have gotten injured or killed this month had we not created a safer right-of-way to begin with.

    If people want to race along city streets at unsafe speeds, then they should go to the Ontario Motor Speedway, where they can pump the accelerator as hard as they like without a worry in the world about the possibility of accidentally hitting someone. But we live in the middle of an urban environment, where more and more people are looking for alternatives to getting in their cars. Remember, each of those pedestrians and bicyclists you see from your windshield are one less car creating more and more traffic for you to navigate. The space they take up when traveling on two feet or two wheels is far less than they would had they opted for four wheels because you got your way and denied them the space to travel in a more efficient, economic, and environmentally-mindful way.

    Besides, the Bureau of Engineering has already determined that removing a lane of vehicular traffic along the Hyperion bridge would not impact the bridge’s throughput. This comes even as they assumed an increase in car trips across the bridge, despite the fact that the number of car trips has flatlined to even declined some recently. Holding onto all that space for two car lanes in both directions even when the most car-focused city agency can’t find the numbers to justify it is just absurd – and it’s stuck in an old school way of thinking that doesn’t recognize the shifting demographics of our city toward a more multi-modal transportation model.

    • If the 85 percentile speed is 5 mph or more higher than the posted speed, then that means the posted speed is too low for that stretch of road and unenforceable per California Law.

  6. Ugh… its already so annoying to try and get back to the Northeast side of town anywhere over there. I now avoid Silverlake for the most part entirely.

    • Eastsider. Please check the entire record no just Sergio Lambarri and Luis Lopez little cabal of friends. 600 Atwater homeowners and residents signed a petition for the road diet. Silverlake and Los Feliz neighborhood councils and the Alliance of River Communities which represents 14 river adjacent neighborhood councils ALL voted and passed resolutions for the road diet.

      The BOE’s very own traffic studies, and they’ve completed TWO of them, one this year and one in 2011 concluded that a road diet would be fine now and 30 years from now under worst case scenario projections of 1% increase per year.

      This is an opportunity to have sidewalks, bike lanes and easy access to the LA River from Silverlake Los Feliz and a ton of the communities.

      THINK about how you would get to the LA River bike path from Silverlake with your kids of you wanted to ride bikes on the river? WHERE would you ride to get there?

      • …fine for 30 years? It’s absurd to assume we can project what the next 30 years will bring, we’re lucky if we can guess what the next 5 years will bring.

  7. So how far back into Silver Lake is that traffic going to back up in the PM drivetime as 2 lanes merge into 1? How many more cars will cut-through to Los Feliz or Fletcher using hillside streets as shortcuts? (Yeah they will – I used to commute from Hollywood many years ago.) Has a traffic study been done on those cut-through streets that aren’t immediately obvious? Ask the folks who live off the 2 Terminus around Glendale, Duane, Earl, Fargo, Apex etc about cut-through traffic.

    Then, once those cars get over the bridge into Atwater they will speed through because they’ve gone from 1 lane to 3.

    Keep 4 lanes of vehicle traffic. People need to learn to share the road.

    • The studies show under the worst projections that traffic WILL NOT back up. There are no alternative routes BUT the bridge. nothing could save you more time more than just slowing up to 35mph under the road diet.

      • Wondering what the studies said about traffic backing up on Rowena after shrinking that road for bike lanes.

        I sit on Rowena twice as long as I ever have before the shuffling of the lanes. I use Rowena many times a day back and forth as well as Hyperion and the Hyperion Bridge..

        I support keeping 4 lanes.

        • Someone was killed on Rowena that’s why you got traffic calming. The case for safety and access on the Hyperion Bridge is very different than Rowena.

          • Running across the street in the dark is never safe no matter how many road diets are in place. Horrible idea.

        • You have no data to back that up. I drive Rowena all the time, I don’t notice any change in travel time.

        • Ezra Horne (@EzraHorne)

          Twice as long! So it used to take you 45 seconds and now takes you a minute and a half! MY GOD! How about leaving 90 seconds earlier?

  8. I don’t remember the last time I heard about someone dying on Hyperion Bridge, it’s pretty safe, I see people walking down Hyperion all times of the day.
    Whoever thinks that bridge isn’t safe should probably move out of LA because it’s clearly not the place for you
    The bridge is fine how it is!

    • Motorist, cyclist, and pedestrian injuries are common on this bridge, and have been fatal. Wake up, “Dude”! The current design is Not Safe for anyone, that is why it is being improved.

      • Let’s see some stats. The bridge has no intersections, no crossings, no parking and no merging. It’s probably one of the safest stretches of roads in the City.

  9. Of course we don’t need sidewalks, I mean if Sergio Lambarri doesn’t need to walk here than no one else in the community will either… right?

    Super depressing that someone with such little empathy or intellect is the “point-person” for the community… is it asking to much that we elect people to the NC who have enough patience to maybe reserve judgement on traffic issues until they read the actual traffic studies and safety stats from the city?

    • Corner soul, your insulting message is disheartening. Why do you think you are qualified to opine on Mr. Lambarri’s intellect? Your conclusory and baseless remarks about Mr. Lambarri not reading the traffic studies are also without merit. and not worth the time to read. Intellect?

      • Well if he would’ve bothered to read the traffic reports, or the safety stats, then he would’ve gleaned, as others have, that people are driving too fast on this bridge (45mph), and that travel times will not be significantly effected by this lane reconfiguration.

        The counter-argument to bike lanes and sidewalks here is based on emotion, not fact.

        • * Also, I should say engineers… not scientists (most of the methodology used to study traffic is very car-biased… but either way, the data favors a road diet here.)

          Here’s an analysis of the traffic study, if you’re curious: http://la.streetsblog.org/2014/08/04/glendale-hyperion-bridge-traffic-projections-favor-bike-lanes-option/

          • Thank you, corner soul. I am happy to read, although I do note that streetsblog may have a certain predisposition . . . . Again, don’t believe everything you read, my friend.

        • Excessive speed can be addressed by traffic calming measures. It is not necessary to eliminate a lane. By your rationale, you should be opposing all alternatives since they call for 2 lanes in the other direction. Correct?

          Also, you incorrectly assume that Mr. Lambarri’s position is as a result of him not reading the study. How did you eliminate the possibility that he read the study and disagrees with the method or findings. Case in point, a traffic study was conducted for the mega church in atwater village. Despite an estimate of 500-700 churchgoers during the 5 services every Sunday, a traffic study found that there would be no significant impact on traffic. If you know about AV, you should be aware that the traffic will go through only two choke points. Yet, no impact . . . Don’t believe everything you read, my friend.

          • If he has another study to cite, then I imagine the article would’ve mentioned it. Sounds to me like he just disagrees, without any data to backup his assertions… I personally think we should hold our representatives to a much higher standard than that.

            And yeah, I agree we should do a lot more traffic calming than what little LADOT has done throughout LA. The standard should be based on safety, not speed. But you can’t let the perfect be the enemy of the good as they say.

            One idea I’ve heard though, as a compromise for motorists, is to reverse the auto lanes so in the morning there’s 2 heading into downtown, and in the evening the opposite. This would help manage rush hour traffic, without sacrificing the bike lanes and sidewalks.

            I wonder why this hasn’t been studied? I believe it’s done in some other cities.

          • When a driver hits a pedestrian at 20 mph, there is a 5% chance of dying. At 40 mph, there is an 80% chance of death.


            But who cares about that, I’m in my car and I’m the most important–am I right??

        • The fact is I have gleaned that traffic is moving to fast. But before we box ourselves in for the next 80 years, perhaps we should consider less intrusive remedies: radar activated speed limit signs, rumble strips, pedestrian activated crosswalks, education programs, and above all else, enforcement of existing traffic laws. Lets not cut off our nose to spite our face.

          • Again, sorry if I was rude in my earlier comments… your responses are much appreciated 🙂

            But why design a street for high speed traffic (with crash barriers and highway scaled lane widths) only to have to spend tons of money on traffic enforcement?

            Wouldn’t it make more sense to just design the bridge so people are encouraged to drive 25mph not 45mph?

            In 80 years, the region will be much more dense, with many more pedestrians, cyclists, transit riders and yes, cars too. The most logical way to accommodate that growth is not to continue designing everything around motorists (And making it dangerous and unpleasant for those on foot and on bike, higher capacity transit options), it’s to build complete streets that work well for *all* modes of travel.

            We’ve been planning primarily with cars in mind for decades, and LA has become a pretty miserable city to get around as a result. Maybe it’s time we look at what works everywhere else in the world, and follow suit?

          • painting bike lanes in or taking them out. its JUST PAINT. a sidewalk is FOREVER. if we take out the side walk generations will see us as IDIOTS. especially you. it will take 10 million dollars to put a sidewalk back in. if the traffic gets too crazy over the years you can just paint out the bike lanes.

  10. Development of river bike paths is and should be the first step towards gradually introducing bike lanes elsewhere. Ideally, cyclists should be able to get from York/Figueroa to Frogtown, Atwater, and Burbank without driving on a single city street. The next phase is identifying feeder bike paths that intersect with the river at the busiest entries/exits. This is a safe and reasonable compromise that wouldn’t enable cyclists to grandstand on city streets but would provide them with bike-access to every major street and NELA neighborhood along the entire length of the L.A. river. The fact that the cyclist-lobby doesn’t even consider this option only increases the perception that they are entitled, unreasonable, and impractical.

    • You have no idea what you’re talking about. Both options are being pursued. However, cyclists and pedestrians still need to go all the same places as motorists. Equal access on city streets is paramount to a livable community.

      The only ones grandstanding and demanding all the space in this city is motorists… and the more space they are given, the worse traffic gets, and the more they complain about it all. It’s a never ending cycle that most progressive cities have moved past. The only way to increase capacity on city streets is to diversify transit options. This has been proven all over the world, time and again.

      Car-centric planning has been an abysmal failure for Los Angeles on every level (safety, property values, travel times, you name it.) It’s time motorists start sharing, instead of acting like entitled children anytime the issue of complete streets comes up. We pay taxes for the streets just the same as you.

      • CS, problem is I never see the cyclists in Eagle Rock on Colorado, York in HLP and Rowena is a disaster now. Where are the hundreds of cyclists?

        • Well there isn’t much of a network yet… just random bike lanes sprinkled throughout the neighborhoods that don’t connect to one another properly.

          Also, I personally don’t notice any difference at all on Rowena in travel time (if anything I think it’s smoother since you can’t reach high speeds as easily)… but it would be interesting to see a traffic study done after the lanes were striped to know for certain.

          The city did one on York before and after bike lanes, and it’s much safer: http://ladotbikeblog.wordpress.com/2013/08/06/york-blvd-road-diet-traffic-safety-analysis/

          Not sure if they released travel impact on York, but there isn’t much traffic congestion on the street in my experience.

      • Allow me to clarify: . . . a safe and reasonable compromise . . . would provide them with bike-access to every major street and NELA neighborhood along the entire length of the L.A. river. The fact that the cyclist-lobby doesn’t accept this compromise as the ONLY acceptable option only fuels the perception of them as entitled, unreasonable, and impractical.

  11. I do not drive. I bike and take the metro…. and I believe this “road diet” plan is FLAWED.
    Instead of reducing the lanes of car traffic, they should diver funds to create pedestrian and bike bridges along the river, connecting atwater and frog town.

    As a biker who uses my muscle energy to transport myself, I don’t want to bike out of my way to cross the river. A bike lane will not increase bikership. More viable means of crossing the river is the solution.

    • With what money? Why spend millions we don’t have on bridges, when the street is under capacity, and prone to excessive speeding to begin with. Paint is cheap, and there’s no reason motorists need to be travelling at highway speeds through the city.

      • Highway speeds?! There are far too many cars on the road to even go the speed limit. During rush hour Rowena is at a crawl and so will the Hyperion bridge if they remove an entire lane. I’m all for supporting cyclists and sharing the road but this plan makes no sense. They should widen the bridge with bike and pedestrian lanes as per plan #1.

        • The traffic studies suggest otherwise… I’ll trust the scientists over the armchair critics.

          • If Hyperion is any reflection of their work, “the scientists”, then I would strongly disagree.

        • Unfortunately they can’t widen the Hyperion portion of the bridge. (The Glendale portions will be by 8′.) This is what is creating the conflict; in order to add bike lanes (which we need) something has to give. We either remove a traffic lane or a sidewalk. Removing an inherently unsafe, underutilized sidewalk, and upgrading the remaining sidewalk to ADA standards makes the only logical sense.

          • making a sidewalk safe is easy. and its important to keep that sidewalk because it leads RIGHT TO the new red car park and pedestrian bridge to the LA river. if there is no sidewalk people will walk in the bike lanes. that is proven every day on zoo drive.

    • With what money? Why spend millions we don’t have on bridges, when the street is under capacity, and prone to excessive speeding to begin with. Paint is cheap, and there’s no reason motorists need to be traveling at highway speeds through urban communities. They can take the freeway for that.

  12. I’ve driven on that bridge for the past 15 years and I have never seen more cyclists and pedestrians using it than in the past two years. Where did all the cyclists come from?! I was driving through Atwater at 7AM on Sunday headed towards 5-S. A cyclist stopped at the light at Glenfeliz with a group of cars. The light turned green and the cyclist then had to cut across three lanes of traffic to get up the bridge. His bike lane just stopped at Glenfeliz. There was no more bike lane, no signage, nothing. It just disappeared. Why shouldn’t that guy have safe passage to get where he needs to go? He’s following all the traffic laws. He just happens to be riding his bike. I would happily be delayed to drive on a bridge that ensures the safety of people like him and pedestrians. I sure as hell do not want to hit a cyclist with 4,000 pounds of car. The roads should be designed to safely accommodate all of us. This misplaced rage at people who try to take alternative forms of transportation despite the fact that there is zero infrastructure to support them is exactly why LA can’t have nice roadways. Time and again politicians vote in favor of cars and it becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy that only ever begets us more traffic jams. I’ll take bike lanes over rude drivers, Dodgers fans attending home games, and Trader Joe’s shoppers any day.

    • both of the debated plans have bike lanes on both sides. The plan that keeps 4 lanes of car traffic just has a sidewalk on one side whereas the plan that eliminates one car land has sidewalks on both sides. In each plan, there are bike lanes on both sides. I support the plan that keeps 4 car lanes and adds 2 bike lanes and 1 improved sidewalk.

  13. Carsmakepeoplestupid

    It’s incredible that ALL of the data reveal that auto traffic would not be adversely affected and Sergio continues without a leg to stand on advocates for Option

  14. Carsmakepeoplestupid

    #1. This is addiction at its greatest. Safety first. All should have access to that bridge.

  15. It’s about safety people and allowing all to cross as was said in the article in “dignity and respect.” Besides the Committee voted for Exhibit 3 and so did BOTH Los Feliz and Silver Lake. You just have some NIMBY-like folks in
    Atwater who are still living in Sam Yorty’s version of LA. More and more people bike in this City and more are walking. Let’s get this done! The people have spoken!!

  16. If the minutes of the Silver Lake Neighborhood Council are correct, I believe Matthew Mooney was lobbying the SLNC to vote to recommend option 3. As he was serving on the advisory board at the time isn’t this a conflict of interest?

  17. As a driver and bike rider in Atwater I am opposed to the road diet on this bridge. The bridge is too damn steep for regular commuting. I use Fletcher or even the sidewalk on Los Feliz to ride my bike over the river.

    • One man’s ‘too damn steep’ is another man’s ‘suicide by I-5 commuter.’ Neither is safe. Riding on the sidewalk puts cyclists in conflict with pedestrians. Someone with a greater vision for the future of transportation has to decree a tenable solution because all of these petty pols (Cedillo) and political fiefdoms (Atwater / Silver Lake) cannot get their shit together. No doubt that the $1bn in federal funding secured for the portion of the LA River that runs through these neighborhoods — with bike trails — will make things even more dysfunctional.

    • The bridge is not ‘too damn steep’ for most bicyclists, but it may be for some. Another great reason to have nice wide sidewalks on both sides. It is definitely ‘too damn scary’ for almost everyone right now. I look forward to a reasonable and safe crossing for everyone.

    • Fletcher is way out of the way though, and it’s no walk in the park near the freeway entrance and east of Glendale Blvd. The steepness of Hyperion going west is an argument FOR bike lanes. You can ride at your own pace and cars won’t have to pass you. Bike lanes are amenity for drivers as much as they are for cyclists especially when they don’t have any effect on travel time like with Option 3.

  18. This makes no sense. All three plans call for two bike lanes, so no matter what plan they choose bicyclists win. I don’t see the need to remove a traffic lane. As for pedestrians, I believe one sidewalk is sufficient. Unless there is a carnival on the bridge there will never overwhelming foot traffic. Cars on the other hand???…There needs to be four traffic lanes.

  19. There are a couple of refrains that are heard from those who oppose bicycle lanes, pedestrian access, and road diets: 1) bicyclists somehow don’t deserve fair access because they don’t obey the rules of the road, and 2) “no one” uses the bicycle lanes.

    The first is simply a red herring. Yes, you won’t see 100% of bicyclists following the law. But since when are automobile drivers model citizens? By logical extension, we shouldn’t give fair access to automobiles because so many drivers flout speed limits, ignore turn signal requirements, hog the passing lane, etc. And who is more likely to kill someone if they are traveling recklessly — the pedestrian, the bicyclist, or the automobile?

    As for “no one” using the bicycle lanes — as someone else pointed out, perhaps you aren’t looking hard enough. Maybe there aren’t a plethora of bicycles going down Rowena right now. For my part, I would love to bicycle to Trader Joe’s from Echo Park, and the route along Glendale Blvd. and Rowena is the only short way to avoid major hills. But how many rational people are going to attempt to bike up or down the craziness that is Glendale Blvd? Particularly with those on- and off-ramps to the 2 Freeway? (That on-ramp is an insult to pedestrians, by the way. I’ve never seen a driver turning onto it give pedestrians the right-of-way that they are entitled to.) The ramps need to be repositioned so that commuter traffic from the 2 comes out in the center of Glendale Blvd., and local traffic — including cars, bicycles, and pedestrians — are safely separated out to the edges. The stretch of Glendale Blvd. near the Red Lion is similarly hazardous to bicyclists and pedestrians alike, with no bicycle lanes, and no — or poorly marked and lighted — crosswalks.

    So yes, there may not be a lot of bicyclists using Rowena right now, but imagine if asphalt roads in L.A. existed only where there are currently bicycle lanes. So you’d have an asphalt road going down Sunset Blvd. You’d have an asphalt road coming out of downtown through the Hill Street Tunnel, before disappearing when it hits the spot where Glendale Blvd. would have been. (It’s vanished! Where did it go?) And you’d have an asphalt road for that little stretch of Rowena. But nothing to connect these roads. Do you imagine you’d see many cars using Rowena, given that it’s not connected to any other asphalt roads? Why then expect Rowena to suddenly attract hordes of bicyclists when, in terms of bicycle lanes, it’s not connected to anything?

    What we have from the likes of Sergio Lambarri, Gil Cedillo, and the rest of the road diet/bicycle lane opponents is a failure of the imagination, and a failure to acknowledge reality. Our planet is heating up, folks! And it goes beyond rising sea levels. Droughts and ecosystem collapse are going to cause major social upheavals that will make a 47-second-longer commute look like heartburn on a gnat. If you want to keep burning fossil fuels like there’s no tomorrow, well — there may be no more tomorrow, and we’ll be the fossils.

    • Thank you for stating this eloquently. What’s remarkable to me is that, even with so little bicycling infrastructure in Los Angeles, the number of people commuting by bicycle has nearly doubled over the past ten years.

      People on this board are complaining about the “bike lobby,” and I presume when they do so that they see some white hipster who’s running stop signs and flicking off drivers. But the reality is that, for many people, bicycling is the only mode of self-controlled transportation available to them besides walking. Why? Because driving requires buying, maintaining, and storing a car. And that’s really expensive for some people. In fact, the combined cost of housing and transportation in Los Angeles makes us one of the most unaffordable places to live in the entire country, which is a real drag on our ability to attract new business and support our local economy. The high cost is also largely driven by our transportation costs (read: owning/maintaining/storing a car) being much higher than other large cities like New York or Chicago where people have many more options available to them for transportation that helps them lower their costs.

      For many Angelenos, being able to ride a bike actually is a tool of economic empowerment. A large number of our bicyclists are recent immigrants, and people who are just making ends meet. Sure, one could argue that they’re going to ride a bike regardless of the infrastructure, but I can attest to personally seeing many of these folks now using the 7th St bike lanes in DTLA where previously they didn’t have that option or the safety of a dedicated right-of-way. It’s not the hipsters who rely most on biking as a necessity of life.

      Ultimately, this comes down once again to the most efficient use of space to move the most people through it. In far-flung places where walking and bicycling simply don’t make sense, then the most efficient use of our rights-of-way is nearly entirely devoted to personal automobile use. But in the heart of our urban core, linking walkable, bikeable dense neighborhoods, these are precisely the kinds of places where we want to support multiple uses of the limited right-of-way space available to us.

      If you go to a city like San Francisco where the streets are filled with bicyclists on their daily commutes and errands, that’s not because people are different in SF. That’s because that city has made a concerted effort to support a range of transportation modes, including bicycles. People in northern California are quite similar to folks here – they just have more options and feel safer than you or I might feel to hop on their bike for that trip to the local grocery store or to pick up their dry cleaning.

      The only thing holding us back from giving ourselves more options for how we want to get around our community is us.

    • @samarkand. Comments like yours help me to understand the mindset of what I call “bicycle religionists.” Somehow folks like you go from quite reasonable and nice suggestions for how to improve the quality of life in our city to alarmist nonsensical and hysterical comments that suggest that if we don’t all give up cars it will be the end of the world.

      Fossil fuels are the problem – not cars. The population of this city is growing and there is no evidence to suggest that a majority of these people are going to give up cars. There’s no reason for them to. The cars of today are much cleaner than the cars of just 20 years ago, and the cars of the future will be even cleaner.

      Cars aren’t going away. People love the freedom of movement that cars offer, and I suspect that cars will always be how a majority of Angelenos travel. Personally, I’m in favor of improving mass transit and I like riding my bike as much as the next person, but the “bike lifestyle” isn’t a religion to me, and when arguments in favor of bike lanes and the like start using end of the world rhetoric and demonizing people who drive a car, it’s a huge turn off and you lose an ally.

  20. @samarkand:

    “…what we have from the likes of Sergio Lambarri, Gil Cedillo, and the rest of the road diet/bicycle lane opponents is a failure of the imagination…”

    Exactly. It’s at least partly about age, but also just an inability to imagine something different.

  21. Greater Cypress Park neighborhood council voted for “no road diet”.

    • Carsmakepeoplestupid

      Cypress Park had no one on the Advisory Committee either. In addition, The Alliance of River Communities that Cypress Park is a part voted for Option 3. Nice try!

      • The Alliance of River Communities does not trump a neighborhood council. Their mandate is to speak on issues regarding the river.

        • 600 Atwater homeowners and residents trump AVNC though. That’s twice as many people that voted in ya whole election.

          • And surely BOTH the Silver Lake and Los Feliz Neighborhood Councils who both voted for Option #3 TRUMP Atwater who is the minority on this issue Sergio. It shows how slanted this article was written. The majority of people voted for Option #3 through a democratic process but the headline still reads: “Atwater at odds” placing the minority of people as the central focus instead of “Silver Lake and Los Feliz choose Option #3”. It’s true what Mooney said, that they “prop their feet up on the footstool of the status quo”.

  22. On the bridge you can walk or bicycle on the sidewalk.

  23. Perhaps a good compromise would be a three-lane roadway with the center lane being reversible depending on prevailing car traffic conditions. Then it would have capacity for periodic heavy car traffic flows while not functioning as a de-facto freeway segment.

  24. People just don’t get it. Lambarri especially. This is about keeping Hyperion Bridge from becoming a freeway. This about making the bridge safer for ALL USERS, not just the cars driving through to Glendale and the freeways beyond. Before anyone in favor of the freeway-ization of Hyperion comments, they should dare to step out of their cars and try to walk and bike across that bridge. Hyperion is easily one of the most inhospitable roadways to non-motor usage in Los Angeles. This is about making Hyperion safer, making Hyperion a *neighborhood* asset, not a regional highway component. Please support Option 3.

  25. Wow. There are some very strong opinions being bandied about here; some based on facts, others on pure ignorance. To begin with, I am not against bicyclists or bicycle lanes for that matter. Nor am I against pedestrians, which would be silly considering how much walking I do. The article didn’t cover one-tenth of what the reporter and I discussed. To help expand your understanding I include the following:

    During the BOE hosted meeting at Friendship Auditorium I spoke up in favor of bicycle lanes. I (as well as others I’m sure) pointed out to the BOE representative that the half crosswalk they displayed was inadequate and needed to travel completely across Glendale Boulevard. I have attended every Citizens Advisory Committee meeting, read all the studies, viewed the powerpoint presentations, spoke to the various city entities involved, and discussed this issue with other members of the CAC. As a member of the AVNC, I weighed all the options, discussed it with and listened to my constituency, spoke with other neighborhood organizations (AV Chamber of Commerce, AV Residence Association, Friends of AV) and came to the conclusion that Exhibit 1 provides the most flexibility.

    Some point to a traffic study showing that three lanes are currently feasible. What they fail to accept is that the same study also indicated a possible 1% increase in traffic through year 2040. This would mean a simple (not compounded) increase of 26%. But the study is fundamentally flawed. It only took into account current needs and uses of the bridge using permits pulled in the City of L.A.; it failed to add the high density units being built and planned on our border in the City of Glendale. When this variable is added to the equation one can easily see more than a 26% increase by 2040. This study is not at all definitive.

    This community knows we need to make room for bikes; no one disputes that, that’s why bike lanes are depicted in every diagram. As for the sidewalks, the vast majority of Atwater Village public school students now attend the Sotomayor Learning Academy on San Fernando Road, not John Marshall HS in Los Feliz. As it stands now, a greater number of pedestrians utilize the sidewalk that has stairways leading to Riverside Dr. or Glendale Blvd., and which has a passage way to the other side of Waverly Dr. I believe an ADA compliant elevated sidewalk with a handrail that travels under Waverly Dr. will provide a greater level of security for pedestrians. We also need to also incorporate the pedestrian activated cross walk signal and the radar activated speed limit sign which BOE included in its presentation. I suggested that rumble strips be a part of the design for the roadway as well. Of course all our safety measures are for naught if the rules now in place are not taken seriously (speeding, jaywalking, riding through red lights/stop signs, etc.). Together, we need to develop a comprehensive education program and push for more enforcement of the existing traffic laws in order to make this the safest bridge possible.

    To add these needed changes, without hindering access to our area, we support the removal of the south face sidewalk that has no stair ways and dead ends at Waverly Dr. Boxing ourselves in with two sidewalks, allowing for only one traffic lane into Atwater Village, along with the two bike lanes, is a disservice to all those that live, work, own a business, pass through, or simply wish to pass the time in our area.

    Someone mentioned that paint is cheap; should the future prove that three lanes are feasible the lanes can be easily remarked. Should so much pedestrian traffic suddenly appear a second sidewalk can be constructed.
    We are the only one of the three communities that will carry the brunt of this project. Every organization in Atwater Village is wholly united behind Exhibit 1 as presented by the City of L.A.’s Bureau of Engineering: Four traffic lanes (two northbound and two southbound), two bike lanes, and one sidewalk (which currently has one stairways leading up from Glendale Blvd. and one leading up from Riverside Dr.).

    This bridge can be made so that it’s inclusive for all without excluding the present or the future.

    Sergio Lambarri

    • Appreciate the response!

      My bad if I mischaracterized your position/knowledge on the subject (although I strongly disagree with your conclusion.)

      Just curious, any idea why a reversible lane configuration wasn’t included in the study (i.e. 3 auto lanes, with the center lane changing directions at AM/PM commute times? I’m not seeing it listed in any of the studies available online (but I wasn’t at the NC meetings, so maybe this idea was brought up there?)

      That would seem to me like a viable option for reducing rush hour gridlock, while still providing equal access to all modes of travel, and significantly calming traffic flow during the rest of the day when people are driving at unnecessary highway speeds (45mph average according to the BOE.)

      • That possibility was brought up and discussed. BOE indicated that to have reversible lanes a movable center divider would need to be installed. Due to its short length they found this option not to be practical. Other suggested overhead signage that would change during the day (such as on 4th St.). This was dismissed as taking away from the historic view of the bridge since multiple signs would have to hang across the roadway.

    • Sergio Lambarri thank you for a well reasoned and documented response to those arguing for eliminating both lanes of traffic. Road diets are recommended for roads with less than 15,000 ADT (Average daily trips) and considered feasible for ones with up to 20,000 ADT. Does anyone know the number for the Hyperion bridge? Furthermore road diets work best on roads where the lane reduction is used not to completely eradicate a lane but to create a center lane to be used for vehicles making left turns (this is how they actually help traffic flow). On the Hyperion bridge this will not be the case, a lane of traffic will be removed, without any mitigating center lane (which would be useless in the middle of a bridge anyhow). I don’t think anyone is against adding bike lanes or improving the safety of the sidewalks on the bridge. I do think there is a strong concern over creating a traffic nightmare, as many in the area have experienced increased traffic on side streets not designed to accommodate such an increase. Also isn’t there a plan to create a bike access path across the old red line bridge pylons that would connect to the River path? Would there be someway to use that to create a completely separate ped/bike route?

      • Traffic is here to stay. The City cannot continue to widen our streets in the mid-20th century belief that this will alleviate traffic, rather this only encourages more traffic. The ONLY way to alleviate future traffic over the next 20-30 years is by providing more mobility options. This is why I support Option #3.

    • My apologies also if I mischaracterized your position as being against bicycle lanes, Mr. Lambarri, and I too appreciate your response. The fact remains, however, that your position as it currently stands is against the traffic-calming effects of a road diet, which would increase safety for pedestrians, bicyclists, and motorists alike. It is also against the safety offered by buffered bicycle lanes. And it is against fair pedestrian access in which sidewalks should be on both sides of the bridge. Why must pedestrians “sit at the back of the bus” when it comes to access to our roadways?

      Most of all, Mr. Lambarri, your position does not have the future in mind. If we are going to survive as a species, we are going to need a radical transformation away from our auto-centric culture. Today’s New York Times story about a draft UN report on dangerous, growing greenhouse emissions gives a hint of what’s in store if we don’t change our ways:

      “The report found that companies and governments had identified reserves of these [fossil] fuels at least four times larger than could safely be burned if global warming is to be kept to a tolerable level.

      “That means if society wants to limit the risks to future generations, it must find the discipline to leave the vast majority of these valuable fuels in the ground, the report said.”


      • Further reading of that article shows the main issue is China’s use of coal. Folks need to stop buying crap they don’t need that’s made in China! Automobiles are only part of the problem. It’s the broader consumer culture that’s to blame too.

    • Thanks Sergio for a calm, rational, and well-reasoned explanation of what seems like the best solution for everyone.

      I think a lot of people are beginning to see that transportation improvements need to work for everyone, not at the expense of lowering the quality of life for some groups – in this case an apparently unpopular majority of people who drive cars.

      • Aw, @Vick. Are you feeling unpopular in your car? Don’t worry about cyclists. The climate and the oil industry still love you.

        • LOL “the climate and the oil industry.” Get back to me with your self-righteous religious attitude when you stop using every single watt of electricity generated by coal and when you never ever use another scrap of plastic.

    • A population increase is a given, Mr. Lambarri, but increased car usage is not. It can and should be managed, but for the sake of our health and safety, it should be with an emphasis in reduction, not maximization. Artificial traffic-calming measures make little sense in that speeding along the Hyperion bridge already indicates overcapacity. Why not use some of the capacity for full pedestrian access? Right now, the biggest problem with northbound access is the lane-swapping bottleneck created by U-turning traffic coming from the Glendale Avenue bridge. What, too, about increased bus service along Glendale Blvd (currently very lightly served by the 92 and the 201) or the addition of a line along Hyperion that connects Glendale to Sunset to handle the high-density apartment traffic?

  26. These people advocating for the “road diet” in favor of bike lanes are just right down DELUSIONAL… or stupid, maybe both. They believe that in the not-to-distant future Angelinos will switch from automobiles to riding bikes to do everything…. from shopping, running errands and going to work. Get real… THIS WILL NOT HAPPEN.

    Angelinos will continue to use their automobiles. They will however switch their gas guzzling cars to either hybrid or electric, and favor smaller cars over the larger ones you see today. This eventual switch to more fuel efficient cars will still require traffic lanes… LOTS OF THEM. Bike lanes will continue to do nothing to ease traffic congestion. They will only make things worse.

    And riding a bike is a choice, stop treating it like some “civil rights” issue. Stop claiming “discrimination”… you are not being discriminated against. You are not a minority that deserves some type of special protection.

    • actually a lot of people want to ride bikes to the river from silverlake. lost of families. you old dinosaurs need to move to texas.

  27. @Ronald and others…….

    Then you will be delighted and encouraged to know that a dedicated multi-modal (ped/bike) bridge is being constructed on the Red Car Piers to do just that! Get Atwater and Silver Lake residents to the River and the Bike path….it’s a bit astounding that in all of this discussion, no one is bringing this up? It’s quite a mitigation measure, and should be mentioned……seems like a ridiculous oversight? Has it not been mentioned at any of these Dog and Pony Show meetings???


    • Edina the multi modal bike / ped bridge is AWESOME and we cant thank Mitch Ofarrell enough for fighting for this. However the sidewalk they are trying to remove is the most direct route from Silverlake to this bridge! without the sidewalk people will be forced to walk 2,200 feet to Glenhurst / Glen Feliz and then back to get to the ped bridge without it. WORSE YET? SERGIO is too dense to understand that the option he is fighting for option 1 would be required to have a crosswalk at the base of the bridge to mitigate the loss of the sidewalk and from the studies actually CAUSES more delay because of the signal that the crosswalk would require! talk about an Atwater Village idiot.

      • Why is this still an issue when the Livable Bridge advocates went out gained the majority of neighborhood support, caused enough noise so as to create a Community Advisory Committee to look into the issue that has come back with Option 3 as the best option and we’re still having an actual CAC member make statements that imply that no one knew of the process? They’ve done the work. If Sergio is so committed why didn’t he go from Council to Council looking for support for his freeway? Basically he comes in at the 11th hour and tries to discredit the entire process just because he didn’t get his way. Frankly, his side lost. They simply haven’t made their case for promoting a freeway.

  28. @C. Philiys, you are clearly DELUSIONAL. Atwater has over 15,000 residents and you think 600 is the “majority”? Get real… 600 is not a majority of Atwater or the overall stakeholders that would be directly impacted by the added traffic congestion due to the road diet.

    AND those 600 signatures that Roadblock is touting are not from Atwater Village. ALMOST ALL OF THE SIGNATURES ARE FROM SILVER LAKE RESIDENTS… not Atwater.

  29. Born and raised here and in my youth I used to bike, walk or take the bus all over this city. And I can say without a doubt that this city was built with cars in mind and everything else a distant second. It was always very white knuckle biking around the streets and to be honest I am sure part of the reason L.A had such few bicyclists is because safety. Now that they are trying to make it abit easier it’s like catch 22 with auto drivers. There’s no bicyclists because the infrastructure is bad and when they try to make it better they say why are we doing this since there’s no bicyclists. It’s almost as if people want L.A to be forever congested. You either give all the lanes to cars and thus feed the L.A beasts for maximium car lanes which in turns brings out more cars and congestion or you make changes. Just my observation over 30 years. Oh and I dont bike.

  30. Some observations here…

    1. Bike lanes are widely un-used. Using Rowena to and from work on a daily basis I’ll probably see one cyclist every other day. I ride my bike often, and realize that the lanes make the experience MUCH safer, but we can’t negatively impact thousands of people’s lives so this imaginary and as of yet un-realized mass of bike commuters will finally get out of their cars and ride their bikes to work. People would be much more open to these bike lanes if they saw a lot of bike commuters . But they don’t. And it’s just not because of a lack of bike lanes. LA is huge and it would take hours to get to work for most people if they rode their bikes.

    2. The bike lane on Rowena does cause delays. Maybe 2-3 minutes at most. But it still causes delays. Since most people don’t just zip down one end of Rowena to the other to get to and from work, they’re probably driving on other Los Angeles streets. And each time a bike lane is added and a lane of traffic subtracted, traffic is inevitably slowed. So it’s not just the addition of one bike lane that causes problems but the addition of many bike lanes.

    3. Cyclists are much more guilty of ignoring traffic lights, stop signs, turn signals, etc than people in cars. On Griffith Park, it’s rare to see a cyclist stop at a stop sign. It’s rare to see someone driving in a car not stop. You can throw out the tired old argument that “there are people in cars that drive just as dangerously as people on bikes” and it is technically true. But there is a much larger percentage of people on bikes driving dangerously than people in cars.

    4. If you are a cyclist and are lucky enough to be on a road with a bike path, you are LEGALLY obliged to stay in that bike path and not ride in a lane of traffic. I feel like no one knows that. So many times I’ll see one cyclist riding in the bike lane, while his/her friend rides beside her in traffic, disrupting traffic for everyone around them. It’s rude and the type of behavior that turns people agains cyclists in the first place.

    5. Those midnight rides do nothing but aggravate everyone around the arrogant masses on bikes. It’s somehow believed that since you’re in a group, it’s perfectly fine to stop traffic for up to ten minutes so nobody on a bike stops at a stoplight.

    • 1. “Using Rowena to and from work on a daily basis.”
      This isn’t a comprehensive sample size. Consider the possibility that every cyclist doesn’t hop on his bike to use the bike path when you happen to be driving past. Many cyclists intentional avoid commuters and peak traffic hours so that they can travel in more calm and safety. I see cyclists on Rowena ALL the time. In fact, I’ve seen a shocking increase in parents cycling with small children on the back of their bikes in the Glendale/Fletcher/Rowena/Riverside corridor.

      2. “The bike lane on Rowena does cause delays.”
      The bike lane isn’t causing delays. The number of cars with one person sitting in them during peak hours is causing delays.

      3. “But there is a much larger percentage of people on bikes driving dangerously than people in cars.”
      You couldn’t possibly be any more wrong. How many cyclists are texting while driving? When have you seen anyone on a bicycle driving drunk or pulled over for a DUI? Nationwide, in 2012, pedestrian deaths comprised 14 percent of all traffic fatalities. In Los Angeles, 41 percent of pedestrian deaths were caused by cars. California is the only state in which hit-and-runs and car fatalities are INCREASING. This is all public data you can fact-check yourself and you should before making such a ridiculous statement.

      Cars constantly speed through Griffith Park like it’s a freeway while disobeying the posted speed limits and blowing the stop signs. It’s pathetic to speed through Griffith Park around all of those children, runners, golfers, horseback riders, museum-, zoo-, theater- and concert- goers. Drive on the freeway if you need to go fast. Not through a designated park with safety limits.

      4. “I’ll see one cyclist riding in the bike lane…disrupting traffic for everyone around them.”
      When there is a bike lane, it is often so narrow, and filled with so much garbage (glass, tires, trash) kicked up by cars, that a cyclist will sometimes have to proceed outside the designated white line. It does occasionally happen. But instead of a couple of anecdotal sights you’ve seen, do an honest count over an entire week to compare the number of cars vs. cyclists to see who really wins at disrupting traffic for everyone else. Bikes aren’t double parking and sitting in a lane of traffic waiting for a parking spot. Lines of bikes aren’t blocking entire intersections to turn into a grocery store, gas station, or post office. Bikes aren’t blocking crosswalks making hundreds of pedestrians walk around the entire length of the car to cross the street. Bikes aren’t blocking driveways preventing anyone else from entering or exiting. Bikes are parking badly and using up two parking spaces. Bikes aren’t causing fenders benders on the freeways that back up traffic for hours. Nobody on a bike has ever caused a police chase that shut down all surrounding roads for hours and made us all suffer the searchlights and noise from helicopters. Try to get a little perspective and be slightly realistic about who is actually causing traffic disruption in Los Angeles.

      5. “Those midnight rides do nothing but aggravate everyone around the arrogant masses on bikes.”
      They have nothing to do with the majority of law-abiding cyclists in Los Angeles. Just like most motorists aren’t blocking the entire freeway to stage a motorcycle wedding, or meet up to drift race down Angeles Crest, or burn tire rubber in a parking lot at Hansen Dam.

      Your perspective is very narrow based on your personal pet peeves. Encourage you to look at a larger body of evidence before asserting your list of observations with little basis in fact.

      • I couldn’t agree more with most of what you’re saying. I would say that you are, however, avoiding directly addressing my specific points by throwing out many of your own somewhat un-related anecdotes.

        About the bike lanes on Rowena… No, I haven’t done my own comprehensive study on the usage bike lanes get at different periods throughout the day. I do, however, drive to and from work at various times throughout the day, not just rush-hour. And it appears to me (again just an observation) that regardless of the time of day the bike lanes are widely un-used.

        As for the delays the bike lanes have caused, it is real. Most of the cars creeping along Rowena on a daily basis probably do have only one occupant. That doesn’t change the fact that drive times have been negatively affected due to the subtraction of a lane of traffic and the addition of a bike lane.

        I have to again strongly disagree with you about the number of people on bikes I observe not obeying simple traffic rules compared to the number of people driving in cars that break the same rules. However, to clarify my point. I’m speaking specifically about people on bikes blowing through stop signs. I see more people on bikes going right through stop signs than I see people on bikes stopping at them. Again, just an observation, no science involved. But I would bet dollars to donuts that any study comparing the two modes of transportation would prove me correct.

        As far as the correct usage of the bike lanes, you’re again throwing out un-related anecdotes in a possibly mis-guided attempt to prove a point. I’m speaking specifically about people riding two abreast, one in the bike lane and one outside of it, as well as someone riding for long stretches in a lane of traffic when a bike lane is available. I understand that sometimes a car will be waiting for a parking spot and blocking the bike lane, or that there could be a trash can or broken glass or any other obstacle blocking a portion of a lane that would cause someone on a bike to temporarily leave the lane. That’s not what I’m talking about. That is understandable and legal. What is not legal is riding a bike in a lane of traffic while there is a bike lane available. Waiting in a car to turn into a parking lot and waiting for a parking spot are legal. The behavior I’m describing from people on bikes is not.

        Finally, in addressing the aggressive behavior during midnight rides vs boneheaded acts of motorists, I agree, neither are legal and both are endlessly aggravating.

        I wasn’t claiming to state scientific facts and frankly my observations don’t need to be backed up by a larger body of evidence. I stated that everything I was saying was based on observation and nothing more. Of course collisions with cars will kill more people that collisions with bikes. I don’t know how that could be more obvious.

        And I wasn’t trying to start a fight with anyone. It seems like the knee jerk reaction to blame all of life’s ills on cars mutes some of the pro bike arguments. All the aggression on this post perfectly exemplifies that. People aren’t regressive idiots for wanting to have a somewhat pleasant drive to work every morning. And people on bikes aren’t selfish for wanting to have a safe place to ride.

  31. Isn’t Exhibit 1 a win-win for everybody? We maintain four lanes of traffic, we get two bike lanes and a standard sidewalk for pedestrians. It makes no sense to me why everyone isn’t supporting this option which is clearly a compromise for everybody. So what if it’s only one sidewalk?. Unlike traffic lanes and bike likes, last time I checked pedestrians were allowed to walk in either direction. One sidewalk across this bridge would never become unreasonably congested with pedestrians. Also, it would allow planners to focus on making this single sidewalk safe and unimpeded unlike to two we have now that end in the north in the middle of merging traffic lanes.

    For the bicycle advocates, remember the original plan was no bike lanes so Exhibit 1 is a victory for you. A win isn’t always getting everything that you wanted. At this point, I feel like some people are just determined to punish motorists. I work full-time and have to commute either across the bridge or on Rowena. I feel like from the prospective of the City of LA that makes me the bad guy and subject to punitive delays when I’m just trying to drop off the kids and get to work. I consider myself to be a safe driver who follows the rules of the road and I feel like I’ve done nothing to deserve this additional burden while I’m trying to take care of my daily responsibilities.

    Are will really willing to let people who use the moniker carsmakepeoplestupid set traffic engineering policy for this City?

  32. One thing to take into consideration are LOCAL residents like me who adjacent to Los Feliz Village who ON WEEKENDS often use the GLENDALE-HYPERION BRIDGE to get from Glendale, Burbank and other parts of the East SFV or San Gabriel Valley to East Hollywood WITHOUT USING LOS FELIZ BOULEVARD which–especially during peak summer months–gets tremendously backed up with Griffith Park related car traffic. Even though distance-wise, using the Glendale-Hyperion Bridge may seem out of the way, on weekends it can cut my car commuting time in half as opposed to using Los Feliz Blvd. on Saturdays and Sundays. If such bridge lanes are reduced, it could have a detrimental effect over traffic flow and turn it into another bottle neck situation like Los Feliz Blvd. (west of the 5 freeway) regularly becomes on weekends.

  33. I’m sure they could fit, one walkable sidewalk, a bike lane and keep the 4 lanes. Just give up the smaller sidewalk, get rid of the space between the opposing lanes, squish them together and put up a divider there instead.

  34. I have a house in Mt Washington and I have and visit friends in Atwater and the Los Feliz area. I ride my bike allot and use that bridge to get to my friends and get back home. I also drive my car on that bridge as well. As a driver of my car I can tell you the road is awful and needs to be repaved. Folks who are biking on the bridge while I’m driving are riding their bike on the road I’m driving on because one or two people are walking on the bridge side walk. The side walk curb is so high that those bike riders will end up staying on the rode with me and swerving to avoid riding through a pot hole while in front of me, while I’m driving. I don’t honk at these bikers when I experience this because I’ve been in their situation.

    As a bike rider, the road has many holes and cracks, the curbs are very high which makes its difficult to move on and off the side walk when people are either walking or riding their bike on the side walk. I remember this one car driver yelled at me for riding my bike on the road while folks were walking on the sidewalk. What he said while yelling at me hurt my feelings I’ll admit and what I thought? I thought “the city has to do something about this bridge to make it friendly and safe for Walkers, Bikers and Automobile Drivers”.

    That guy who yelled at me was right about me riding my bike on the road.

    It’s my opinion, the option to get rid of one sidewalk, dedicate it for bikes only and big enough to travel in both directions in addition to keeping all four lanes and keep the other remaining sidewalk would be the best option to go with.

    Should the money to make that option happen come out of the River budget money? hmm.


    • Dumb. The bridge was built with belvederes on both sides, so the original intent “keeping with the character” of the bridge were for people to access both sides. Stop being a weasel for the oil and auto industries and give us our bridge back.

  35. Removing car lanes on the bridge! What insanity. I’ve lived in Atwater for 16+ years and have been coming to Atwater for 30 years. Not only has vehicle traffic has increased greatly in that time, the RATE of increase of vehicular traffic has quickened as well. Has anyone noticed the increased requests for higher density lot development (i.e., more people) and the huge amount of apartments and condo’s soon to come on line in the area (Glendale, Silverlake, Highland Park etc,, etc.)? Is this new population all going to be pedaling their way to work and errands, dropping off kids to school, etc. on their bikes? I think not .Even bicyclists drive cars. Reducing auto lanes is lunacy. Add a bike lane if you must, but never at the expense of a car lane.

  36. I work and live near Hyperion and Rowena. I love the addition of bike lanes where possible. However, the Rowena Road Diet is a disaster. The traffic congestion on Rowena now is as bad as the 10 freeway. So I don’t believe the studies because I am sure they did not predict this problem on Rowena.

    Eliminating a lane northbound on the Hyperion bridge would cause the same problem. every night at rush hour, Traffic is backed up on Hyperion already from Rowena all the way to the Fountain curve each evening. There is no way that eliminating a lane northbound would not cause even more congestion. The math does not add up.

Post a Comment

Please keep your comments civil and on topic and refrain from personal attacks. The moderator reserves the right to edit or delete any comments. The Eastsider's Terms of Use and Privacy Policy apply to comments submitted by readers. Required fields are marked *