How about this? City officials come up with yet another plan for the Glendale-Hyperion bridge


ATWATER VILLAGE — Residents, cycling activists, business owners and transportation officials spent most of last year weighing, debating and arguing over three proposals to reconfigure the flow of traffic across the Glendale-Hyperion bridge. Two of those options call for reducing the number of lanes for motor vehicles and adding more space for bikes and pedestrians. But instead of selecting one of the three proposals, city officials have now come up with yet another plan.

The Atwater Neighborhood Council released renderings of the new proposal, called Option 1A, that would keep four lanes for motor vehicle traffic and create shared walkways for pedestrians and cyclists as part of a larger, $50 million bridge improvement project.

Here, according to a neighborhood council member Sergio Lambarri, is how this option would work:

Under Option 1A the four motor vehicle traffic lanes will be 10.5′ wide for the inner lanes and 11′ wide for the outer lanes, with a 4′ wide median dividing the opposing traffic lanes without a physical barrier, for the entire length of the bridge. The two sidewalks would measure 5.5′ wide under Waverly Dr. and 8′ wide for the remainder of the bridge. Bicyclists will share the walkway without a physical divider and will be directed to the inside area (closest to the safety rail) with pedestrians occupying the outermost portion of the sidewalk.

At least one proponent of the new option who attended a meeting last month said the new proposal met with opposition from bike and pedestrian advocates.  The public will now once again have the opportunity to voice their support for the now four options currently on the table.

Option 1A


Four motor vehicle lanes and two shared paths for pedestrians and bikes.

Option 1

Four motor vehicle lanes, two bike lanes and one sidewalk

Option 2

Three motor vehicle lanes, two bike lanes and one sidewalk

Option 3

Three motor vehicles lanes, two bike lanes, two sidewalks


  1. All this hand-wringing is absurd. The city’s own analysis shows that, with construction cutting down the bridge to a single lane in each direction, there’d be no impact on traffic flows. So, LA City, please tell us why we need to bump that back up to two lanes in each direction once construction is complete?

    If Tom LaBonge would come on board with the three-lane option, between his support and Councilmember O’Farrell’s this would be a done deal already. Instead the glowing remnant embers of Tom’s last months in office are gracing us with another effort to thwart common sense as well as significant community support for a three-lane option, and instead hand over another victory to cars cars cars at the expense of anyone else using these bridges for decades to come.

    This is ridiculous.

  2. NOW we’re talking. Why wasn’t this the first proposal? Sheesh.

    • I too am in favor of this option over 3&4. I’m still in favor of 1 before 1A . 1A is a good compromise, but I don’t expect many cyclists to support this. They are not willing to compromise and want to claim om their space.

      • What do you mean by, “they are not willing to compromise?” If motorists are asking for all 4 lanes, doesn’t that mean that they too are unwilling to compromise?

        It’s only a compromise if all parties make a sacrifice, not just one.

  3. Really dumb to have pedestrians share the narrow walkway with bikes, especially when bikes would be descending the steep incline at high rates of speed. In Burbank they do that on Chandler but there you have room to pass and swerve onto the grass for safety. On a steep bridge there’s nowhere to go. And 5.5 feet of room is a joke.

    The merits of option 3 are overwhelming.

    • Sean’s point is super-important: bikes are going to be going very fast down that bridge. It’s complete idiocy to cram pedestrians in with them, exposing both parties to risk of serious injury or even fatal accidents.

      Motorists are extremely privileged in this city. Pedestrians and cyclists are merely asking for fair treatment. It’s the least that can be offered to those who are able to travel with minimal carbon emissions and are helping to keep the world a place we can all continue to live in.

    • So it’s dumb to have pedestrians share the walkway, because bikes are going too fast… but the bikes are complaining that it’s unsafe to share the road because cars are going too fast? The irony makes my head hurt.

      How about the bikes slow down? Why can’t they show the same respectful right-of-way that they’re clamoring for on the roadways.

      It’s idiocy like this that makes me ashamed to be a bike rider.

  4. Honestly this is probably the winning option. This just seems reasonable. It’s also not ideal for bicycles, pedestrians or cars, which is how you know it’s a true compromise.

  5. Anyone have the link to the other options? This just looks like what’s there now.

  6. Of course drivers like this, they don’t concede any space and force people walking and biking to mix it up on narrow sidewalks that physically prevent bikes from entering the roadway. A compromise implies all parties are giving something up. What are the drivers giving up, because I still see 4 lanes and a useless median that only encourages illegal and dangerous speeding.

  7. What are bikers giving up? Bikers are gaining a protective barrier between their path and traffic in option 1A, while retaining essentially the same amount of space. Why wouldn’t a cyclist go for that? Or is it more important to “punish” drivers?

    • Well, it’s hard to give something up when you start with zero. Naturally the ideal situation for bikes is protected bike lanes in each direction. A compromise would be unprotected bike lanes/narrow lanes.

      • Agreed. This is basically like forcing cyclists to ride on the sidewalk. That’s just takes the danger of cyclists being hit by cars and reassigns it to the pedestrians who now have to worry about being hit by bikes.

        • There’s very little foot traffic on that bridge anyway. It’s mostly cars that use the bridge.

          • “There’s very little foot traffic on that bridge anyway. It’s mostly cars that use the bridge.”

            Gee, I wonder if the deathtrap design of the bridge might have something to do with that.

          • There are parts of the bridge where the sidewalk is only a few feet wide. Who wouldn’t want to walk on that with cars speeding by>

  8. Why not 1A but make one side for bikes and the other for pedestrians (both directions on both sides). Maybe the bike one could be wider and the pedestrian one narrower.

  9. Ohhhh! I’m so loving the DRAMA here! …. AND I don’t give a crap either way so it’s just fun to read… ;-P

  10. The whole thing needs to be torn down and reconfigured to sensibly access Riverside. Yeah I know pipe dreams.

  11. I support 1A. I think with new traffic patterns and WAZE taking motorists off the freeway into the communities, we need to keep the four lanes of car traffic.

    • Everything should configured around impatient cut-through drivers looking down at their phones. I’m sure the residents love that. What could go wrong?

  12. Keep the 4 car lanes. Restrict bicycles to parks and empty lots.

  13. Carsmakepeoplestupid

    1A is the same as 1. Cars concede no space therefore this is not a compromise. The LADOT could not possibly go for this. Once Labonge is out Option 3 will prevail.

    • Counting the days!

    • 1A is not the same as 1, put your glasses on. 1A crates two sidewalks, two bike lanes, reduces width of car lanes.
      Reduced lane widths will certainly keep cars at a safer speed. Cyclists won’t want to share space with pedestrians though.
      Option 1 with two dedicated bike lanes, one sidewalk and 4 traffic lanes is still the best option.
      @ …peoplestupid & Salts, You’ve both been involved in this discussion and should know details by now . You should at least tell the truth.

  14. Why can’t they just widen the bridge to accommodate everyone?

  15. 1a is super dangerous for pedestrians… There is no way mixing a sidewalk with fast traveling bikers is ever a good idea.

  16. Seleta Reynolds could/would/should not ever approve such a dangerous proposal for bikes and pedestrians. If anyone is hurt on the bridge simply because the LADOT didn’t have enough balls to stand up to a stuck in the past neighborhood council like Atwater along with equally stuck in the past Labonge, blood will be on the agencies’ hands. We all know what needs to be done. Nix a car lane for bikes and pedestrians. It’s the only fair and progressive solution there is. Besides, Silver Lake and Los Feliz have already thrown down the gauntlet, and it’s OPTION 3.

  17. Come on pedestrians & bicyclists can barely share the12′ wide path in Elysian Valley – sure they’re going too get along on the even noisier Hyperion Bridge (yeah- sure I’ll hear you calling out behind me when were above the 5 Freeway).

    Is the dedicated ped/bike bridge on the old red car trolley footings (adjacent the Hyperion Bridge) no longer on the table? That is an alternative that I’d rather use to walk across the river than breathing fumes from the cars on the bridge. If it’s still in play than that would take some of the ped/bike traffic off the too-narrow sidewalks on the bridge.

  18. Next up should be fixing the timing of them traffic lights to be synchronized. too many times in the am this area is backed up because of the traffic lights and number of automobiles.

    • The City of LA has sensors under every signalized intersection in the city. The system is called ATSAC and synchronizing traffic lights is what it has been doing since the 1984 Olympics when the system was rolled out. The reality is that light synchronization does not do very much to move cars faster – once a traffic light has been installed, or once an intersection exists, that is where the delay is generated. ATSAC can shave a few seconds off of a car trip.

      The cost for this system is in the hundreds of millions and millions more are spent each year on maintaining it and expanding it, yet the benefits are on the order of a few seconds shaved off a motorists commute.

      There are low budget solutions to moving private vehicles on urban surface streets at a higher average speed, but those same solutions are opposed on emotional grounds by people who could stand to gain a substantial reduction in delays. Some examples: traffic circles, roundabouts, road diets, shared space, and congestion charging.

  19. Is the city going to work on Fletcher next? I take that road while bicycling to work, and it can be scary.

    • Oh, man. Be extra cautious on Fletcher — drivers, pedestrians, and cyclists. It’s a mess and the accidents are piling up. There are so many different agendas at that intersection, e.g., cheap gas lines at Arco, entrance to the 5, entrance to the 2, entrance to the LA River bike path, cut-throughs to Atwater via Larga, day laborers stacked up at the U-Haul rental, etc.

  20. Every time I buy a gallon of gas, I pay approximately 35 cents in taxes, at least some of which goes toward road maintenance and development. Bicyclists contribute nothing. Why should they be accommodated at all?

  21. Yes, keep all 4 lanes”

  22. Option 1a is unsafe. Two bikes using the north side (because that’s what the vast majority of pedestrians and cyclists will use) coming at each other with 8 feet of space and the downhill cyclist is struggling slightly with the steep incline might be swerving a bit. Maybe they even have their head down because it helps you keep pedaling (even though it’s not safe to do so). And the uphill rider gets cut off. There’s nowhere to go but the wall. These issues will come up all the time.

    Option 3 offers safety for pedestrians and cyclists. There will still be two lanes for uphill and cars can pass slower vehicles.

  23. The ridiculous part of this is that it was already settled to be plan 1. It was done. The City officials are nice enough to try and throw a bone to cyclists, who just want to kvetch about anything they can.

    Cycling activists are nuts are not satisfied unless they are stealing lanes and worsening traffic jams to try to force people into their way of thinking, which will never happen because it’s a ridiculous idea in the first place.

  24. For those cyclist who feel that they cannot safely share the downward path with peds because they must go as fast as possible, there is no restriction on them using the car lanes!! So they get the best of both worlds. What Option 1A allows, which Option 3 does not is put in place a crash barrier so my 10 year old son can bike across the bridge. Definitely NOT possible with Option 3.

  25. Concerned Resident

    I’m all for creating safe roads for everyone but traffic on the bridge during rush hour is horrendous and four lanes are needed. I can see why bikes would need two lanes separate from pedestrians since they travel at much faster speeds and wouldn’t it be horrible if someone got in their way forcing not only them but the other bikers behind them to get backed up? And heaven forbid a biker hit a pedestrian, it’d be the end of cycling in L.A. I like option 1 as most of us do which is why it won the first vote. Frankly, submitting a new proposal after the cyclists lost the first vote so that all four options, including the cyclists’ beloved option 3, are back on the table for a new vote reeks of bad sportsmanship and deception. And why the heck do pedestrians need two lanes? Can they not pass each other going in opposite directions? Makes no sense.

  26. Here we go again! No removal of car lanes! Don’t touch the bridge! Leave the bridge alone!!!

  27. Keep 4 lanes for cars. This area is getting more and more populated and the VAST majority drive cars! Bicyclists will ALWAYS be a tiny minority on the bridge. Enough already! Get the plans done and start fixing this thing. At this rate we’ll all need wheelchair lanes on the damn bridge by the time it’s done!

  28. While I admit to not have reading any of the traffic studies for the bridge, I do use it daily and the thought that taking it down to two lanes won’t create a traffic nightmare seems ridiculous. Look how bad Rowena has become during rush hour since they changed that whole section to two lanes. While I have walked the bridge a few times, it felt like taking your life in your own hands as it is so narrow in spots. It seems like we should be able to create one usable walk way, fair bike paths and four lanes and a middle barrier to protect on-coming cars with the amount of space that exists. In other words, Option 1 with some form of barrier!!!! Anyone who has walked the beach in Venice, knows how dangerous it is when bikes and pedestrians share a path and that has no cars for when a pedestrian or biker is forced to take defensive action.

  29. Option 1A looks good, as for pedestrian traffic mixed with bike traffic well it would not be the first time in the history of the world. 1A also provides a CRASH barrier that is much needed improvement. Share the road/walk way as all the billboards/sides of buses urge share the road (with Bikes).

  30. More people will walk and bike in the future and fewer people will drive, so Option 3 is the right choice. For the posters who worry about removing a lane, please look up Induced Demand. It has been well understood for 20 years – traffic will remain at the same level of congestion regardless of the number of lanes. The only decision is how many lanes of stopped traffic we would prefer. The bridge is a treasure and should be used by people and not just cars.

  31. Fad Lemmings bite

    Reducing lanes would cause total chaos on glendale blvd. 1st hand study riding a bike, walking, and or driving on that bridge for over 30 years. my study says screw your study. I rode up and down that bridge my entire adolescent years, why cant these nerd bike riders do the same cant they be gluten free and ride a bike at the same time?

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 *