Commission backs plan to add bike lanes to Glendale-Hyperion bridge

The Public Works Commission unanimously voted this morning to add bike lanes but remove a sidewalk on the Glendale-Hyperion bridge as part of a $50 million improvement project. The  commissioners rejected calls by cycling and pedestrian activists  to eliminate one traffic lane in order keep sidewalks on both sides of the L.A. River span that connects Atwater Village with Los Feliz and Silver Lake.

The commissioners agreed with many Atwater Villlage residents and business owners who had said that reducing the number of traffic lanes on the bridge to three from four would only worsen congestion in the area. In addition, some commissioners said that the number of pedestrians who currently cross the bridge did not warrant preserving sidewalks on both sides of the span, especially if it meant reducing the number of lanes for cars and trucks.

Engineers had said that the bridge was not wide enough to safely accommodate four lanes of traffic, two bike lanes and two sidewalks – something had to give.  Commissioner Heather Repenning said she was concerned primarily with public safety when she voted in favor of the option recommended by city engineers.

“What is currently there now is not safe for anyone,” said Repenning. “It’s not safe for bikes. It’s not safe for walkers. It’s not safe for cars. There is an urgency to get this project moving.”

The proposal now goes to the City Council for a vote.

The commissioners are sending to the City Council a plan that would:

  • Eliminate the five-foot wide sidewalk on the east side of the bridge because it cannot be “safely” accessed on either end
  • Widen the sidewalk on the west side of the bridge to six feet
  • Add raised bike lanes to the east and west sides of the bridge
  • Add a pedestrian crossing  on the Atwater side of the bridge
  • Retain four lanes for motor vehicle traffic

The $40 million project funded  by state and federal funds is intended primarily to make the Glendale-Hyperion bridge, which is actually made of several spans and structures, stronger to withstand earthquakes and also improve traffic and pedestrian circulation and restore the structure’s historic character.

Officials have pointed out that the two current sidewalks on the bridge don’t meet the standards set by the American With Disabilities Act and do not provide an uninterrupted connection between Atwater Village and Silver Lake and Los Feliz.

A spokesman for Councilman Mitch O’Farrell said the plan approved today by the commissioners would create a single, six-foot-wide sidewalk that will provide the first “uninterrupted pedestrian connection” between the neighborhoods on both sides of the river.


The Eastsider’s Daily email digest includes all new content published on The Eastsider during the last 24 hours. Expect the digest to land in your in email in box around 7 p.m. It’s free to sign up!

Once you submit your information, please check your email box to confirm your subscription.


  1. Once again, the auto rules out. LA is still living in the dark ages. When do we reverse the culture of the car and start encouraging walking and riding? It’s ridiculous!
    While other American metropolises are implementing new modes of transportation, LA still looks to the past!

    • Let’s see – 2 bike lanes added to bridge. A dangerous pedestrian crossing replaced by a safe and pedestrian path across the bridge separated from traffic. Hardly seems like the “auto rules out.”

      • So what are drivers giving up? Nothing. They started as king and ended as king, thus auto rules out. Think of the SLkiddo. They will inherit a city designed to prioritize the movement of inefficient, excessive vehicles when we know alternatives such as walking, bicycling, and transit are better. The pedestrian bridge was a proposed temporary mitigation measure and someone was smart enough to make it a permanent addition.

        • So, then, Salts, you contend that the bike lobby isn’t interested so much in bikes; its real priority is to get rid of cars, regardless of whether anyone actually rides bikes. OK, now we understand.

          • Not sure what you’re suggesting, I think it’s clear we just vastly overuse cars, and that’s not a wild claim. And it is clear Sallie you are not willing to make any sacrifices/modifications in your transportation habits for the benefit of future generations. As long as you can keep motoring, who cares what the world looks like for our children, as long as you have your freeways that divide communities, as long as you have your lanes that only exist to accommodate peak hour travel, as long as you don’t have to walk 100ft between your car and your destination, nothing else matters, not even climate change, air quality, or safety. Glad we know how selfish you are now.

            But with all seriousness, Los Angeles will never become a safer, friendlier, and more livable city unless we make tough choices today for the benefit of future generations.

          • Salts, you sure hate Los Angeles. You should be somewhere else that you like.

          • No, I love Los Angeles, I want it to be a sustainable, clean, and safe city for my children. Wanting to make a place better is not a sign of hate, it’s a sign of hope and caring. It would be selfish for me to want to do nothing and let the city deteriorate.

            Are you trying to argue we DON’T use cars too much? Or that we aren’t over-reliant on them? Do you think we shouldn’t do anything to make the city more sustainable for our children? I am puzzled as to why you would suggest I hate the city.

      • It did. Because car drivers could not give up an inch of space or speed we will have narrow gutter bike lanes next to 50mph traffic. Pedestrians will have to walk 1/2 mile out of the way to get to the new bike pedestrian bridge. Will they walk 1/2 mile out of the way or will they walk in the gutter bike lanes?

        will the city clean the trash out of the gutters from all the idiots who cant operate a car?

        • Get your facts straight. There will still be a pedestrian walk way – buffered from traffic on the west side of the bridge. It will be 6 feet wide . Yes there will be a slight inconvenience of having to cross at Glenfeliz and not directly at the base of the bridge, but the base of the bridge on the Atwater side would be a harrowing place to cross anyhow as you have traffic from the 5 converging here as well. The proposed bike lanes are 5 feet wide. (narrowing to 4 feet as they approach the hyperion side. These are much wider than the ones along Sunset for example. The car lanes have been narrowed to discourage excessive speed. It really does seem that most of the outrage from the bike advocacy community isn’t about adding bike lanes (which they are getting) but rather about removing a car lane.

    • Yes, Alex, your complaint is bankrupt. You show the bike lobby is not so interested in getting more bike lanes to accommodate bicycles as it is in using that fake argument in a devious, and frankly wacko, attack on cars.

      In fact, bicycling has been strongly encouraged for well over a decade in this city, with bicycle lanes all over now – yet as anyone can see, hardly anyone has shown a preference to bicycle over driving their car. There are probably 500-1,000 or more cars out there for every one bicyclist — because that is what people prefer and what they need and what a healthy economy requires.

      The people of Los Angeles have clearly voted their preference and their needs by the choice of their mode of transportation. Still, they have been generous in doing so much to accommodate the few bicylists – yet all you can do is try to villify them for their generosity. Here, you have everything desired, yet that is not good enough, no matter what, you want car lanes eliminated – because that was the primary goal in the first place, not bicycling.

      The bicycle lobby has expressed hate of cars for a long time now and has spouted fake assertions of how much everyone just wants to bicycle if they only could. They have used a fantasy idea of bicycles as a tool to attack cars, to thwart cars at every turn. It was inevitable that time would prove them wrong, and now it has with bike lanes all over and hardly used.

      You got your bike lanes, pedestrians are accommodated, there is a bike and pedestrian bridge in the works just north of the Hyperion Bridge and another south of the Hyperion bridge. Show some appreciation! Try a tiny bit of honesty.

      • Well said Tim, very well said!

      • Well said, Tim! Especially since every survey of cycling rates across the city and the country have shown large year upon year increases that coincide directly with the construction of second rate bike lanes that don’t connect to each other or anything relevant. Even with our crap bike lane non-networks we’re STILL seeing growth in bicycling in the city.

        Don’t let the truth get in the way of whatever stupid emotions you want to unload online.

        • If you want truth, maybe you should start with yourself. You are a bike shop owner acting in your own best interests. Basically, you’re a corporate shill.

          In my 9 mile commute to work, I used to see one bike rider, and now I see two. An optimist could say that bike usage has doubled, but considering I see thousands of cars in my commute to work, the two bike riders are statistically insignificant.

          A city needs to be set up to serve the vast majority of its population, and the vast majority of Los Angeles relies on cars.

          The fact is, the automobile is able to move way more people, quicker and more efficiently than the bicycle. All it takes is one visit to a Ciclavia to see how inefficient bicycle transportation can be.

          • Yeah he’s a corporate shill just like the auto-oriented businesses (fast food joints, mechanics) or exercise-related businesses (yoga studios, gyms, spinning studios) that oppose road diets are corporate shills, right? Because they benefit from people being unhealthy, getting into crashes, and needing regular maintenance. If you knew Josef you’d know that he is foremost an advocate for a more livable city, he just happens to be a bike mechanic.

            You want to talk facts? Let’s talk accommodating people with a fixed amount of space– is it more efficient to move people by cars or to move them by buses and bikes? Do you believe we have a declining oil supply? Or do you ignore that?

            And you must be joking about your ciclavia comment right? You can fit close to 100,000 bicycles on the same roads struggle to serve 40,000. You just don’t want to take responsibility– you are a lazy selfish person that hopes you can keep living a wasteful life without consequences. Who cares about today’s children, let them solve the problems you’re creating with your selfish habits.

          • Salts, you realize, don’t you, that Buses need roads to drive on?

            I have participated in several Ciclavia’s. It’s great fun to ride with thousands of other people, but as far as getting from point A to point B goes, it’s horribly inefficient. With all the weaving, meandering bicyclists, it takes an hour to pedal two miles.

            Let’s say your dream came true and all motorized vehicles disappeared from the streets of Southern California. With millions of people on bicycles, it would be almost impossible to get anywhere. Given most bicyclist’s disregard for traffic rules, it would be complete anarchy. It’s hard to Wolfpack Hustle in total gridlock.

          • First of all, nobody here is asking to ban cars (there are plenty of people on this blog who feel that bikes should be banned and disappear, though). Can we stop saying that? Suggesting such extreme and silly things gets us nowhere.

            Also, I fail to comprehend your logic. If we move millions of people, in no world with fixed space is it most efficient to transport all or most of these people by car. Cars take up more space, simple as that. And we need not imagine what it would be like with a majority of people rode bicycles https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n-AbPav5E5M And it definitely does not take an hour to pedal 2 miles, though the “congestion” during ciclavia can be attributed to the constrained corridors. Yet despite that we cram far more people into the same amount of space that struggles to carry half as many people in cars on any other given day.

            Yes buses need lanes, but buses need just a single lane. The only mode of travel that demands more than a single lane in each direction is the automobile, and this is because it is terribly inefficient, especially when cars that can carry 5+ people most often only carry a single person.

          • In rush hour traffic you can’t get anywhere fast on the 405 or 101. Half of the traffic is caused by kids being taken to school. Kids used to walk or bike to school. Ciclivia is not an event to get people from place to place. Its the same thing as when NYC closes Central Park to cars on the weekend. It encourages mass cycling. The new bike paths along the metro lines are a step in the right direction.

        • ubrayj02, there’s an old saying: Liars figure, and figures lie. Bill’s comment about your statistics are on the mark.

          • I know, right? When a nations engineering reports and studies, industry surveys, and government reports all show that bike ridership numbers are up across the country it is probably all lies and a big conspiracy. Big Wheel strikes again! The Bike Lobby!

            Bill says something so stupid it is hard to respond to: that CicLAvia is “inefficient”. What on God’s green earth is this fool talking about?! You read that and think, “Right on brother!”

            When people you agree with can just throw out non sequitors like that unchallenged, I think I know which side of the argument is full of it.

    • The original plan called for no bike lanes. Learn how to accept victory.

      • ” Learn how to accept victory.”
        IT IS NOT A VICTORY FOR PEOPLE WHO ARE PEDESTRIANS and unlike automobile ONLY drivers us cyclist care about everybody’s safety not just our own. Cars, Bikes, and Pedestrians.

        “Vision Zero?” I think L.A. has Zero Vision.

  2. Looking at long term environmental effects, gas powered cars can be replaced with electric, dramatically lowering their environmental impact. Bikers will continue to be an environmental hazard as it is well known that bike riders pollute more than driving counterparts due to increased life expectancy and of course generally being miserable a$$h0les.

  3. It’s so interesting that bike advocates tout safety in support of Option 3.


    • Around 25 percent of the overall traffic in Malmö is by bike. Remarkably, in the 10 years from 2003 to 2012, the city has seen only 16 cyclists killed in an accident involving a car. Somehow they achieved that without bike helmets.


      Crazy huh?

    • Mandating helmets is counterintuitive, as it’ll just discourage a lot of people from cycling alltogether. If you’re a city with any vision, you probably want to encourage cycling as it means healthier citizens, less pollution and more bang for your buck when it comes to tax revenue. Truly progressive cities opt instead to make their streets safe and productive places where 8-80 year olds can ride a bike or walk around their neighborhood, without cars bearing down on them at highway speeds.

      • How do bicyclists add more “bang for your buck” when it comes to tax revenue? The average miscreant on a fixie contributes almost nothing to the city’s tax base, while the car driver has annual registration fees, drivers license fees, gasoline tax, and parking tax.

        • Parking tax? You park for free almost everywhere, then complain when you need to pay a dollar to store your private property on prime real-estate in high demand areas. Who pays to clean up after all those car crashes that happen on our freeways and streets? The driver certainly doesn’t return to the scene and sweep up all the glass. Cars are far more subsidized than you may realize.

          You get more bang for your buck for so many reasons and in different ways but as one example, think of freeway widening. We spent over one BILLION dollars to widen 405 and got nothing. If county had spent one BILLION on bicycle infrastructure we’d have far more people bicycling, which would benefit everyone due to cleaner air, reduced demand for parking spaces, healthier people, etc.

          Also earth to Bill– nobody tells you to own one or more cars. And even if you do, nobody forces you to drive everywhere and all the time. You pay some of those taxes because of the negative externalities of driving, do you realize that? If you hate driving and all the costs attached to it, embrace policies, infrastructure, and street designs that give you the option to forgo or reduce the amount of driving you do.

          • Uh, Salts, get a grip, stop twisting what people say. Bill wasn’t complaining about the payments. He was pointing out how car drivers DO pay, but bicyclists don’t. Hey, we just spent $1 million to put in some bicycle parking poles on Sunset (yes, WAY overpriced, but no more overpriced that anything they do for cars), but as you point out, bicyclists won’t have to pay to park at them, they won’t even be on a cock for could leave their bikes at the pole all day, blocking anyone else from using them.

            Those bicycle accommodations, and the bike lanes themselves, are paid for from transportation taxes, which are paid by car drivers, not by bicyclists.

        • Public streets are maintained primarily through the general fund (i.e. property taxes… which we all pay into, even “miscreants on fixies”.) And since bikes do virtually zero damage to the roads, it’s a no brainer in most desirable big cities as the pros tend to outweigh the cons (slower traffic is a small price to pay for healthy, human-scaled neighborhoods where intelligent people flock and small biz investment flourishes.)

          But let’s talk cars for a second. You do realize that the federal highway trust fund is going bankrupt as we speak, right? Gas taxes and motorist fees have failed to keep up with the enormous maintenance costs of late twentieth century, car-centric growth patterns in this country (or even inflation for that mater.) Meanwhile, the feds and states have been raiding general funds for years to pay for maintenance and expansion of highways, because entitled drivers like yourself certainly shouldn’t have to pay your fair share, amirite?

          And of course, you overlook the irreparable damage being done to our the environment via climate change, to local air quality, and the daily carnage that ensues when we engineer our local streets to double as surface highways (last I checked cyclists weren’t killing and maiming tens of thousands of people every year in this country, like motorists do.)

        • As a cyclist not only do I pay annual registration fees, drivers license fees, gasoline tax, and parking tax ON MY CAR.
          I also paid sales tax on the thousands of dollars on my bike, so it looks as if we pay more than you.
          Your argument is stupid

          • That’s rediculous! You think you paid more sales tax on your bake that a driver paid on their car?! Are you insane! And if you – its not clear, either thousands of dollars of sales taxon the bike or thousands of dollars for the bike, either way, you sure had your eyes closed, you overpaid just a smidgen. And you’re calling the other people stupid?!

          • The Public Works Bureau of Street Services, Engineering, and Special Projects are responsible for street maintenance, not LADOT. They are funded via the gas tax more than the general fund for street maintenance. Not that I think it even matters. The only people getting the shafts here are pedestrians that really prefer to walk on the east side of bridges. Everyone else is seemingly getting what they want.

          • @bum: Just curious if you have any links to prove what you say… not that I don’t believe you, but it seems that LA’s streets are funded by a variety of unconventional sources and I’d like to be as informed as possible on where my tax dollars go. Thanks!

          • I looked at the LA City Annual Budget.

  4. partialcrosswalk

    Re: “Add a pedestrian crossing on the Atwater side of the bridge”

    This article fails to mention that the proposed crosswalk is only partial, crossing only 2 of the 9 lanes of vehicular traffic on the Atwater side of the bridge, connecting the west side of the bridge to the west side of Glendale Blvd.

    There will be no crosswalk added that would allow people on the east side of Glendale Blvd to cross over to the one sidewalk on the west side of the bridge.

    The pedestrian bridge that will be build just south of the Hyperion Glendale bridge only connects Atwater to the bike path along the river. It only covers about 1/8th the distance of the Hyperion Glendale Bridge Complex and does not span the 5 freeway, Riverside Dr. or the incline up to Los Feliz and Silver Lake.

    • At yesterday’s Public Works Commission meeting approving Option 1, the Bureau of Engineering committed to working with LADOT for a full pedestrian crosswalk. We just need to hold them to it.

      • And I think it’s 8 lanes of traffic

        • partialcrosswalk

          in mtgs it was brought up as 8 or 9 lanes, depending where the full crosswalk would be… but looking at the map, I think you are right, it would likely be 8, there is only a very small stretch that is 9

          that said, the DPW just has a partial crosswalk in their approved design… with no full crosswalk. it is also not a signalized partial crosswalk, which means it will be the same game of frogger getting off the bridge to the west side of Glendale, with the same traffic speeds as always, but now just with some paint on the ground

  5. Look, I’m born and raised in LA. I am NOT a bike rider, but I strongly feel that people opting for bike riding, walking, and public transportation should take precedence. We have to look to the future. We cannot sustain a car culture that increases at the rate it is and if it means I have to be stuck in traffic much longer to provide more bike lanes and wider sisewalk, so be it. The folks willing to get on a bike, walk, take the train deserve the best routes not me. Those people are the progressives, progressing into the next century that cares more for the planet than the rest of us.

    • Thank you!

      And many of us drive cars too. It doesn’t have to be an either/or situation. Streets are for people: pedestrians, cyclists, buses, cars, etc. LA just needs to diversify transit options a little, so people can get around their neighborhoods safely and conveniently, with or without a car.

      If spending hundreds of billions on highways, and giving over the majority of public space to cars actually made our cities more mobile and prosperous it would be one thing, but LA’s certainly tried that, and I think we can all agree that the majority of this city is a congested, crumbling mess.

    • Alex K., this proposal DOES add bikes lanes. The complaints here are by bike riders who don’t care that it adds all the bike lanes they wanted. They aren’t particular concerned with that. What they are screaming about is that the number of lanes for cars is not being cut by 50%. They don’t care that everyone is being fully accommodated; that is not their goal. Their goal is to thwart cars.

      • The goal of complete streets advocates is not to “thwart cars”, but to ensure our neighborhoods provide pedestrians, cyclists and motorists an equal footing with regards to safety and convenience. Right now, our streets heavily favor motorists, often at the inconvenience and safety of others (i.e. removed crosswalks, missing sidewalks, streets where the design speed allows cars to travel 10-20mph above the posted limit, etc.) You may prefer this, but it’s certainly not the safest way to design streets… not by a long shot.

        Nobody wants to remove cars from this bridge, that’s hyperbole and you know it. They just want to provide bike lanes, 2 sidewalks and mixed traffic lanes in both directions. They also want to ensure that cars are traveling at or under 35mph (as it is now, traffic flows at about 50mph on this bridge… even the engineers admitted as much in the community meetings.)

        Some of you need to travel more, LA’s way behind the times on this stuff.

        • “Some of you need to travel more, LA’s way behind the times on this stuff.”

          This is accurate. I was in Manhattan last year, and the transformation of the city to allow better for pedestrians and bikes has been startling. (As someone who believes everything is better on the west coast, it was a bit embarrassing as well, because in this instance we have fallen behind.)

          LA needs to be thinking about a future of more human-accessible neighborhoods, not canyons that people drive through at high speeds. Sometimes you have to see it, to believe it’s possible.

          Many of the commenters here, unfortunately, are stuck in a past model of traffic flow, and are defending it out of reflex.

  6. No Road Diet!! If those in favor of bike lanes want everyone to stop using their cars then markets and services and work MUST be moved closer to home. There are no good supermarkets in many areas. People have to drive long distances just to get to a market. Our government officials have never come up with a solution to move markets and services to a one stop shopping center in Los Angeles. If that were to happen that would cut down on driving.

    Some cities have shopping and restaurants all in one place. That cuts down on driving. Los Angeles does not have that in many places. And, work is often far from home. That will not change. Driving is necessary in Los Angeles.

    • But Susan you consistently scream for “NO DEVELOPMENT IN ELYSIAN VALLEY!” Which do you want? A stagnant city of zero development, or a vibrant one of new markets and stores opening closer to our homes? Especially in Elysian Valley which is perfect for biking, if there were markets and stores along the bike path we COULD bike to go grocery shopping.

  7. What about motorcycles? I don’t see any outcry for better protection for those that ride motorcycles. Where is the road diet for motorcycles??

    • A road diet would keep people from speeding on that bridge like it is part of the freeway system thereby by default making it a safer place for motorcycles too.

      • Cops will stop people from speeding on that bridge. Why is the no LAPD traffic enforcement in NELA?

        • If you have to setup traffic stings to make sure people aren’t driving 15-20mph over the posted speed limit (50mph traffic flow is common on this bridge) then I think it’s safe to say you’ve failed at engineering the road. Personally, I’d rather our police force focus on serious crimes instead of wasting our limited tax dollars handing out tickets on a poorly designed bridge.

          • The viaduct was designed just fine for conditions at the time.

            The designer Merrill Butler didn’t know that the I5 would run underneath it. He had a design for a garden with paths.

            Cars about 1930 vintage drove comfortably on the bridge at 35-40ish mph.

            Merrill once said that Hyperion was his favorite of all the bridges he designed over the LA River, including Sixth Street.

            This bridge can be seen minaturized at Disneyland as part of the California attraction.

            Now, if you wish to say that the bridge does not function well at this volume at high vehicle speeds and the funky Uturn to go south, well, I’m right there with you.

          • I think we’re on the same page. I don’t fault traffic engineers from the 1930’s for traffic flow of today, because cars were a relatively new form of transportation. But knowing now what we do, there’s safer ways to retrofit this bridge.

            From what I’ve read, the original traffic studies done on this retrofit projected traffic counts would be perfectly fine with the road diet in place (and basic pedestrian access to both sides of the street would be maintained, which is important.)

            But at the last minute, they drop this 2040 projection into the mix. But it would seem looking at our development pattern that if you build it they will come. More lanes and crappy sidewalk will indeed increase traffic because people won’t have very good options.

            Anyway, I think we may find private auto ownership plummet in the not too distant future, if driverless cars ever become ubiqitous. Less people will need to own a car if they can just summon a driverless Uber at cheap rates (as operating costs on taxis will no doubt plummet once you remove the drivers.)

            Perhaps that’ll never happen, who knows? But we certainly don’t know what traffic will look like in 2040 either (just as the engineers in the 1930’s had no idea.) We should build the city we want to live in, not the city highway traffic engineers tell us we’ll need.. they have a strong bias and their metrics are one-sided.

        • @eastsidearts: You ask about enforcement. It’s a good question. I don’t see more strict enforcement happening — if you have ever talked to a senior lead officer, or been to a community meeting where this is raised, you know what I mean.

          Here’s my theory: Most people (i.e., voters) do not, truly, want better enforcement. People talk about it, but they don’t want to live with the consequences.

          Thus, if more enforcement was ever tried, there would be so many regular citizens charged with traffic violations that (1) there would be an outcry, with all sorts of mitigating circumstances brought up; and (2) the LAPD would not want to live with the poor community relationship that would result.

          One example is the outcry about pedestrian-crossing tickets downtown — whether you like it or hate it, it counts as more enforcement, and it has been generally lambasted. Another is the red-light cameras, which have been fought tooth-and-claw, despite the fact that running red lights is a serious issue here.

          In both cases, all kinds of reasons for why this particular enforcement effort is misguided are brought up, but that’s my point. People don’t really want it, and they will find reasons to justify their belief.

      • danger, I go over the Hyperion Bridge all he time. You will be hard pressed to find anyone going over like a “freeway!” Actually, more often than not, they are under the speed limit of 35 mph! Please don’t just make up false situations.

  8. People opposed to reducing number of lanes on Hyperion seem to believe that we are powerless to transform Los Angeles into a less car-centric city. They seem to believe that LA has “always” been as heavily dependent on the automobile as it is today. They also seem to believe that reducing the number of lanes from two to one on one side of the bridge is an attack on their safety and ability to travel by car.

    By contrast, people in favor of reducing the number of lanes believe we have a responsibility to make tough choices today for the benefit of the future. These people also seem to be optimistic that LA can become a less car-centric city that affords people safe, viable options for travel. They seem to believe the status quo is not sustainable and seek to take action to make a more sustainable city. These people are not asking for a ban on cars, they are asking for a safer bridge that gives plenty of room to the most vulnerable road users (those on foot, wheelchair, bike)

    • Salts, your concept of why people oppose making fewer traffic lanes is far off the mark – and seeking to put words in other people’s mouths like that is manipulative. Actually, they LIKE it like this, they understand things you have no idea about. Bigger is not better. You just have endless streams of fantasy, with no consideration of reality, a promise-them-whatever-they-want-to-hear sermon from on high to lead them to Paradise. What you want to build is smaller minds.

      • Please educate me on the reality of climate change, diminishing fossil fuels, growing population, and limited space. Because if you know anything about any of these things you would support a bridge that prioritizes walking and biking. It’s not a fantasy, we spent billions on building freeways, require developers to provide free parking for cars, and engineer streets that prioritize speed. That’s why we are in the position we are today. It doesn’t have to be this way, and anyone with an open mind would recognize this. If you think we are motoring in mass at the expense of safety and environment because we love to speed you are wrong. We are doing it because we are engineering out walking and biking as safe, attractive modes of travel.

  9. I wonder what this would be like, if there would be such a strong debate, if the original Red Car streetcars were running.

    Like that one next to Hyperion.

    Would you take your bike on the Red Car to go over the river?

  10. This topic has almost reached the bottom of the Eastsider, out of sight out of mind.

  11. Evidently many here don’t venture much onto LA freeways. Otherwise, there wouldn’t be such blinding loyalty for motor vehicles. The all too obvious lesson we should have learned about our vast freeway system is, “build a freeway and cars will soon fill it”

    And as neighborhood density increases (see downtown LA ……or Los Feliz Blvd.), so will the number of cars, that is unless we create a viable option for those who decide to make the switch. However, if there’s little infrastructure in place (foresight), there’ll be little incentive to leave the car keys at home once city streets become freeway-like parking lots.

  12. The bridge work won’t even start until AFTER the pedestrian/bike thing on the Red Car pylons is finished and that won’t even start until 2018, so we’ll all be in wheel chairs by the time the bridge work begins. Enough already.

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 *