Thursday, October 20, 2016

Crime on the rise; lawsuit threatened over Glendale-Hyperion bridge project

MOrning Report

  • The number of reported crimes rose by 12% during the first half of the year, the first such increase in more than a decade. L.A. Now
  • Cycling and pedestrian activists say they are planning to file a lawsuit over city plans to remove a sidewalk from the Glendale-Hyperion bridge.  Los Feliz Ledger
  • Food Forward’s Summer Harvests are Pickin’ Up in the Eastside. Bulletin Board

eastside events

Submit An Event

Submit An Event

Eastsider Advertising


  1. lol. that group gathering about the bridge looks pretty weak. they’re whole thing doesn’t make any sense other than lawyers attempting to cost the city time and money. what a waste of time.

    • Sadly, the Bike Nazis have a lot of free time on their hands.

    • The leader of their group, Don Ward, should be sued for the series of dangerous, illegal bicycle races and rides he puts on.

    • We’ll see.

      The city’s official position is they want to build “great streets” that are safer and more accommodating to pedestrians and cyclists. They even have a plan called “Vision Zero”, to reduce traffic fatalities dramatically over the next decade.

      With all that in mind, it’s baffling why they didn’t go with the safest and most accessible bridge option. Even their own traffic studies suggested that a road diet would not effect average travel times. Otherwise, they would have had to do a more detailed environmental study (which is what the lawsuit is hoping for, on the grounds that removing a sidewalk will indeed negatively effect the environment.)

      Whether or not you agree with the bike/ped advocates, there’s certainly some smoke here. The city talks a big game about complete streets, but when push comes to shove they rarely have the cajones to stand up to motorist entitlement, and design for safety first. Hopefully this will send a strong message to City Hall that you can’t have it both ways!

      • Oh puhlease….

        it’s currently unsafe…the new plan, makes it safe–for everyone! Currently NO ADA sidewalks, NO bike lanes. NO Cross walks…..this plan provides it all, AND all based on the LA County Bike Coalitions suggestions from 2013….careful what you wish for, you DO get it…..Smarter minds prevailed, and now we have the sour grape folks…..threatening a lawsuit over a “safer” solution. Best to wait for it to fall down, rebuild (like Riv/Fig) and still ONE sidewalk…Sigh…lawyers reap the dollars, communities lose…lesson learned? Unlikely……

        • Not to mention, if this lawsuit only succeeds in delaying the project, everyone loses as everyone on both sides of the debate concedes the current bridge design is unsafe. Who is responsible if an accident occurs on the bridge while this is being litigated?

        • The current plan will do nothing to address speeding. Cars routinely hit 50mph on this bridge on a routine basis. All the bike lanes and ADA crosswalks in the world don’t mean a thing if the design speed of the bridge is too fast.

          Smarter minds my ass. Entitled motorists and intellectual laziness… that is all.

  2. Why is it that the agenda of the cycling lobby simply doesn’t appeal to a cyclist like myself? They need to re-evaluate because I find it very difficult to reconcile my love of cycling with their agenda. Something’s is either missing or being included, e.g., a sense of self-righteous entitlement(?).

    • The cyclist “lobby” isn’t asking for much. Last I checked, sidewalks on both sides of the street wasn’t exactly a revolutionary idea. You clearly don’t ride a bike (or walk) around LA much if think speeding is a non issue on our streets.

      • “You clearly don’t ride a bike (or walk) around LA much if think speeding is a non issue on our streets.” Thanks(?) for answering my question with your smug and self-righteous response. Otherwise, I’m a free-rider NOT a gearhead. For the past 25 years, I’ve been regularly hitting the river, dirt trails, closed roads, and various bike paths from Ventura to the Angeles Forest to satisfy my cycling fix. I DO avoid cycling on city streets because I see enough driver distraction and plain incompetence while I’m driving to trust traffic barreling down behind me but it’s drive negligence not speed that troubles me. Bike paths directly parallel to traffic are simply dangerous. The L.A. river connects to virtually all of the main boulevards from Pasadena to downtown. The road-diets are impractical and self-righteous bullsh*t. Incorporate this immediate and authentic knowledge of local cycling options into your agenda and you might finally gain some traction among the demographic you claim to want to include. Although, more and more it seems that you don’t really don’t care if it has the opposite effect.

        • You’re a recreational cyclist. The ‘cycling lobby’ represent those who want to cycle as a primary mode of transportation. Conflating the desires of those two groups is like saying the goals of AAA are the same as weekend racetrack goers. You are not part of the target audience.

          • “You’re a recreational cyclist” and expanding and establishing a culture of local recreational cycling represents an incremental step closer to increased practical cycling. It’s just common sense. Btw, at the moment, I can get from Figueroa to Burbank while crossing every major boulevard along the way and within blocks of every conceivable business without spending more than three minutes on a city street. THAT is my intermediate vision for cycling through and around my side of town. If bike paths along the river were expanded to provide the same coverage all the way to Long Beach, that would be an excellent intermediate step towards your ultimate goal. What is so unreasonable about that plan? Other than the cycling lobby not getting exactly what it wants when it wants it?

        • Trails, why didn’t I think of that! I guess next time I need to go get food at the store, I’ll just stay on the trail and forage for berries. Thanks!!

          • You clearly aren’t familiar with the various alternative paths, trails, and residential streets criss-crossing NELA if you think clogging up street traffic is your only option for getting around. Also, cycling miles to go grocery shopping is just one example of the delusional fantasies the bike lobby consistently cites and which highlights just how out-of-touch they are with the majority of working-class families in our community.

            Listen, I’m pretty certain that I am a LOT deeper into road and mountain-biking than you are and am an avid believer in the benefits of cycling but shoe-horning this past-time into streets designed for traveling long distances is simply knuckle-headed BUT there are compromises that can blend what we do have with what you claim to want. What’s important to remember is that ONLY BABIES GET WHAT THEY WANT. Adults learn to negotiate and compromise in good-faith to honor EVERYbody’s concerns and priorities. Time to grow up, kid.

          • Just so we’re straight, Marshall students that live in Atwater are supposed to walk or cycle a mile or so out of their way to find some combination of meandering side streets and trails, instead of just designing a bridge that’s safe for everyone? Sounds reasonable!

            Certainly we cannot ask the divine order of entitled motorists to push their precious feet on the brakes and slow down to a moderate speed, while they sit in their plush air conditioned carriages. That would just be beyond the pale… what the hell was I thinking!

            Bless you for straightening me out with your sage wisdom! Maybe some day you can teach me how to rock hop my way through the riverbed and the over hills to Trader Joe’s. then I won’t have to offend the delicate sensibilities of you and your fellow wheelmen along the Rowena Turnpike or Glendale Expressway.

          • “Marshall students that live in Atwater are supposed to walk or cycle a mile or so out of their way to find some combination of meandering side streets and trails, instead of just designing a bridge that’s safe for everyone?”, which is precisely what we did when we all attended Irving and Marshall back in the day and many of us weren’t lucky enough to live as close as Atwater, Silverlake, or Los Feliz but that’s what public transportation is for. What’s the big deal? It’s actually a much safer and healthier walk know than it was back in the smog-alert days.

            Anyway, you’re getting all worked-up over not getting your way and not necessarily because we disagree about our love for cycling. You need to consider being more flexible and creative. It would be great if the market was on the corner and school was only a few blocks away and jobs concentrated everywhere in between but we live in (and love) L.A. We should be thinking how to incorporate whatever best of both worlds actually fits resulting in incremental progress towards our common goal: a bike-friendly village/town/city with plenty of public, accessible, and affordable transportation to everywhere we NEED to be.

        • “Bike paths (or sidewalks) directly parallel to (speeding) traffic are simply dangerous.”

          There, I fixed that for you!

  3. Carsmakepeoplestupid

    How did asking for a sidewalk become a cycling issue?

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 *