Lawsuit filed over Glendale-Hyperion bridge project; alternative Boyle Heights school shut down

MOrning Report

  • Bike and pedestrian activists have filed a lawsuit over the $50 million Glendale-Hyperion bridge project, claiming the city needs to conduct a full environmental review to study the impact of removing a sidewalk from one side of the bridge. L.A. Times
  • L.A. County said a drop in enrollment forced the closure of an alternative Boyle Heights high school for students on parole and those facing other problems.  EGP News

Reader Benefits Card Small

News From Our Sponsors

eastside events

Submit An Event

Submit An Event


  1. Carsmakepeoplestupid

    How did removing a sidewalk become a bike issue? Bikes are getting full bike lanes on the bridge. This is a pedestrian issue and we’re ALL pedestrians sometime during the day.

    • Because the bike issue is as much of a fraud as the sidewalk issue. This is a fight for a major density increase. Its all interconnected. They want to bludgeon and steamroll this through. “This” being that the California Environmental Quality Act does not mean impact on cars is important much less that it is top over all else. So, that will explode the infrastructure for cars, and you then, on the assertion that people will just not get cars any more because that’s what they always wanted, can greatly reduce the number of required parking spaces that must be built, use that for more density instead. They see Los Angeles as only about 10% built so far. they see empty real estate everywhere — that’s where I see beauty and beautiful views and flowing air and see the sun everywhere.; they are not interested in my values. They are devious, manipulative. I don’t know what their arrangements are with the lawyer to pay for this litigation, but they clearly are well heeled. We’re going back to 1910 — apparently because it was so great not to have a car and be packed in and can’t even figure out which way the sun goes to set, never saw it. And after all that has been done, they are filing a lawsuit over this idea?! Their only purpose is to thwart cars, all that was pushed was for that purpose. Everything was addressed, and they even managed to keep the car lanes. And they sue, they can’t even accept that — because their entire purpose from the beginning was to thwart cars, the rest was just BS, and that’s why it appears to be so BS. They’re going ape here. They’re looking to bludgeon anyone in their way.

      Who’s behind it?

      • Reality: the BoE’s own car-centric analysis shows that, during construction, you can remove TWO lanes of traffic from 4 lane Hyperion Avenue and have NO IMPACT ON MOTORIST TRAVEL TIMES.

        So, who is behind this nefarious plot to remove one lane of traffic and install two quality bike lanes and two quality sidewalks? The people in the area with a clue are behind this lawsuit. People who are sane are behind this lawsuit.

        For the love of God, try and forget about your sacred totem of power for once! You are so in love with car driving that anything that even symbolically moves your beloved off to one side is seen as a broadside against everything you love.

        I say again, the BoE’s own reports based on direct traffic counts shows that only 1,200 to 1,300 cars use the bridge during peak hours and that volume could go up to 1,500 before there would be any impact of a one-lane each direction Hyperion Avenue. We are not arguing motorist delay versus everyone else’s interests. We are arguing motorists sense of entitlement versus the interests of everyone else.

      • “Who’s behind it?”

        Safety advocates.

        The only people being literally “bludgeoned” in this city are pedestrians, by motorists driving anywhere from 40-80mph on public streets engineered for speed over safety.

        But please, carry on with your well-though out rant… something about 1910 and not being able to see the sun?

  2. This is about the bikers want to take over the bridge and leave no room for cars. It is also called “road diet”. No road diet for the Hyperion Bridge. I am glad these activist are suing to stop it.

    • FWIW, I believe you have it mixed up… the lawsuit is coming from pedestrian activists who want to keep the sidewalk (in other words, they support the road diet option.)

      • No, actually it is by neither pedestrian activists nor by bike activists — as those are fakes and always have been, They really are simply anti-car activists hiding behind those false claims about bikes and pedestrians. They push bikes and pedestrians solely because that use that as a tool to attack cars.

        Hey, they got everything here in this plan, everything — except to thwart cars. But to thwart cars was really the only thing they wanted — their devious and manipulative tactics backfired on them, because their arguments could be accommodated even while accommodating the cars.

        They are now going berserk because cars are not being thwarted, not because there is any problem for pedestrians. There is no problem for pedestrians, the one sidewalk that will bee on the one side will be widened. AND it can handle plenty more than the pedestrians who will use it — despite the fantasyland figures this anti-car lobby chooses to invent and assert.

        If they wanted to do other than thwart cars, they would have and still would be calling for the bike lanes to be added on the outside of the bridge, which would be better for the bikers anyway, since then the existing bridge wall would even provide added protection. And that would even provide more space for more sidewalk that really isn’t needed anyway. But they are not asking for that, because bikers and pedestrians are really not the goal. Bikers and pedestrians are really just a faked weapon they are using to attack cars.

        • Do you have any idea how crazy you sound? “Thwart” cars, LOL! I guess wanting to live in a neighborhood where cars actually drive at sane speeds, and the elderly and children can safely get around on foot is now a conspiracy?

          You need to get out of your car more often and take a walk around this city. Windshield perspective is fogging your brain.

        • The level of dumb and insane just keeps getting raised higher and higher by those demanding a car-centric city.

          The BoE’s IS-EA report, on pages 2-31 through 2-33, based on direct traffic counts shows that only 1,200 to 1,300 cars use the bridge during peak hours and that volume could go up to 1,500 before there would be any impact of a one-lane each direction Hyperion Avenue. We are not arguing motorist delay versus everyone else’s interests. We are arguing motorists sense of entitlement versus the interests of everyone else.

          Get a clue!

        • This has to be satire.

        • Hey, everyone won out with this plan, everyone was accommodated — everyone. Well, except those whose only real purpose was actually not pedestrians or bikes, but was to pursue a very misguided war on cars.

          If people wanted to bike everywhere, you would see more than one here and there biking now. There have been lots of road miles of bike lanes now for well over a decade, yet you hardly see anyone at all riding a bike, just a stray here and there. The overwhelming majority does not want to be relegated to riding a bike, they vote choosing to drive their car.

          When you get to 1,200 to 1,300 cars riding a bike on a road, let us know.

          • A lawsuit OVER A SIDEWALK and this person above has to say something stupid and nasty about people who ride bikes.

            Just how dumb and hateful do you have to be to twist things into the anti-bike mental rut you are stuck in? I am guessing that at this point it is just automatic. The line cook gets your order wrong and it’s a person riding a bike who is at fault for that too.

  3. For some reason unknown to me, all bridge options presented by the BOE feature a maximum 69′ width. Evidently, this “maximum” width pits the needs of motorists, pedestrians and cyclists against each other; that is, four lanes, two sidewalks and two bike lanes respectively cannot fit within the confines of 69 feet. Why not make it slightly wider to accommodate all elements?

    Many motorists demand a speedy transit from one side to the other. Unfortunately, higher vehicle speed creates an unsafe disparity between them and the other two users. Speed disparity requires increased barrier and/or space separation, potentially increasing the bridge volume. Thus, vehicle speed across the bridge must be reduced to safe levels. This is the solution preferred by those who advocate for only 3 lanes (a single lane in one direction). However, if the 69 foot width can increase by a few feet, it seems the bridge can accommodate all elements by its users, and if vehicle speed can be mitigated, the safety margin increases for other users. Can four vehicle lanes, 2 sidewalks and 2 bike paths safely co-exist? I think so, but better accomplished with a wider bridge and some speed management.

    • FYI because the bridge is considered an historical monument, no alterations can be made to it’s appearance. In fact they will be restoring the appearance of the original balustrades on the bridge. This is the reason that it can’t be widened. The bigger question is why are the bike/ped activists wasting everyone’s time suing instead of trying to find a way to create a safer crossing for bikes and peds. For instance they are planning on connecting the Atwater side to the LA River bike path via a bridge across the old Red Line pylons. Why not figure out a way to extend it so it connects to the Silver Lake Side by Rowena/Hyperion. A completely separated bike/ped path would be infinitely safer than any lanes on the bridge!

      • Probably because that would cost millions and take years to design and approve… the road diet is more cost effective for the taxpayer. It can be done as part of the retrofit, and it will lower top speeds without effecting average speeds. That means less accidents; less chance of death if an accident does happen; and less wear and tear on the roadway.

        As far as I can tell, the counterargument can be summed up in two words: vroom vroom!

        • Road diets totally affect average speeds. It’s really simple – if for half of your commute, you are stuck in gridlock caused by idiotic road diets, your average commute time increases.

        • And a frivolous lawsuit isn’t going to cause years of delays for the work on the bridge and cost the taxpayers lots of money? There’s been absolutely no study on what the “road diet” would do to Hyperion before the bottleneck. And BTW road diets work on streets where adding a center turn lane helps the flow of traffic. Last time I checked no one is making a left turn off of the Hyperion Bridge.

          • I’m not sure I follow how delaying the project will cost the taxpayers millions (as a pedestrian bridge surely would)… care to elaborate? And how is asking for two sidewalks on a bridge “frivolous”? Isn’t that standard practice in most urban bridge designs?

            As far as a traffic study before the bottleneck, I suppose that’s a fair point. But maybe the EIR they’re trying to get the city to conduct will help shed some light on that?

            Road diets are first and foremost about improving safety. When streets have way more capacity than the amount of traffic they carry, speeding becomes commonplace (traffic regularly flows in excess of 50mph here… day and night.)

  4. What the bike/ped and even local activists like myself tend to forget is the big picture. How many people commute through our neighborhoods each day, taking the Hyperion Bridge won their way between the San Gabriel Valley (or even further out) and the Westside? Just because we are able and willing to live close to the city doesn’t mean everyone else can too. You cannot keep taking away traffic lanes until you have a viable alternative transportation system in place.
    How many of you have taken the 210 to Glendora during afternoon commute hours? The answer is not more small lot subdivision because those houses are not affordable nor family friendly.

    • Restricting housing supply isn’t going to bring down housing prices (particularly in the city, where there’s high demand and limited space.) Sure, newer small lot subdivisions in NELA aren’t cheap. But new housing in desirable neighborhoods never is. The argument is more that increasing supply eases competition on older, less desirable housing stock nearby.

      As far as the family friendly argument… that’s kinda subjective, no? In my view, allowing our public streets to double as “arterial highways” is far more problematic for most families than whatever it is you’re thinking (lack of yards?) Anyway, why should the city have to be a dangerous, abrasive place to go for a walk — suburban commuters should be a distant afterthought for LA city’s planners and traffic engineers. Putting neighborhoods first is just smart policy for any city, IMHO.

    • This bridge maxes out at 1,200 to 1,300 cars during peak hours. With a single lane in each direction on Hyperion you will have no delays until volumes hit 1,500 cars. The BoE’s IS-EA document spells all this out on pages 2-13 through 2-33.

      The BoE had to project out to the year 2040 to pretend that vehicle trips will magically increase, though they’ve been falling regionally since the mid 2000’s, to excuse the massive oversupply of car-only road space here.

      The reality is that a car lane could be removed in both directions, making it a two lane car street, and there would be no impact on vehicle travel times. All that is happening now is drivers are speeding between intersections on either side of the bridge and bunching up at red lights – adding more delay to their trips due to the starting and stopping inertia of a pack of cars.

      It seems like one side of this debate has to hand hold the other through a rational adult discussion rather than a bunch of henny penny the sky is falling anecdotes and red herrings.

  5. If lane reduction was the armageddon for this bridge, the BOE wouldn’t reduce the lanes to one in each way during the year(s) long construction. It’s all a bunch of hooey. Option 3, everyone has to compromise.

  6. These car-obsessed suburbanites are dead set on living in some 1980s LA dystopia where every street is a freeway, anyone who doesn’t drive a car is worthless, public transit is nonexistent, and pedestrians and bikes deserve to be mowed down. Get your mind out of 1980s Orange County and into the 21st century already. LA has a lot of catching up to do to get up to speed with more progressive 21st century cities like NY and SF. And if you must cling to that crappy 80s LA, please move to the west side where you can be around like minded egomaniacs who still think Beverly Hills is the peak of civilization.

  7. 99% of all roads in LA need a road diet.

  8. Road diets discourage reliance on vehicles and encourage 5-10 mile round-trip strolls(?) to the market for milk and eggs or the “local” cycle shop to get my bike tuned(?). Problem: 5-10 miles is no casual stroll through the neighborhood.

    • Nobody in Northeast LA or North Central LA lives more than a mile from a grocery store… and a road diet certainly isn’t stopping anyone from buying milk. It’ll just be harder to gun it to 50mph in between red lights. Tragic, I know!

      • Wrong, The closest supermarket to my home is 1.5 miles away for a three mile round-trip stroll. Btw, aren’t you the same guy who was bemoaning the prospect of poor Atwater students having to walk to and from Marshall every day? But now a longer walk to and from the supermarket is no problem(?).Meanwhile, I previously posted that following the compromise the group that continued to whine would expose themselves as the group pushing an agenda NOT addressing any urgent community need. “Welcome” to center stage and the bright lights of scrutiny Mr. Corner Soul.

        • So you clearly don’t live 5-10 miles from the grocery store… thanks for clarifying how absurd your earlier comment was. And what does your car-centric lifestyle have to do with mine (or some kid walking to Marshall from Atwater every day?)

          You keep changing the goal post. This is about safety. Road diets calm traffic flow, that’s all. Nobody is trying to prevent you from driving places, just make it safe and convenient for others to walk or cycle too. Different strokes… isn’t that what this country’s all about?

          Read the rest of the thread, the BoE’s own study says travel times will not be compromised with the road diet on this bridge (just top travel speeds… big difference!)

          And if you can’t see how this addresses an urgent community need, I feel sorry for you. LA has a hit and run epidemic. Fatal car crashes happen day and night in this city. And in that problem, pedestrians stand out… according to an article that ran in the Times yesterday, they were involved in 1 in 10 traffic accidents in Los Angeles from 2002 through 2013, yet represented more than 35% of road deaths. Do the math!


    The sidewalk that has people frothing at the mouth doesn’t connect to anything. At all. There is no reason to have it.

    • K bro. Gud point.

      Oh wait! The people suing want the sidewalk(s) to connect to the other side of the bridge. That is why they are suing!

      Mebe U shud reed sum moar.

  10. Let’s take the bridge down period and keep all those eastsiders where they belong on the eastside. Keep Silver Lake a haven for hipsters.

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 *