Today’s Headlines

Screen_shot_2010_08_26_at_7.42.13_PM.pngThanks LAPD, for slowing down traffic in front of my house and this week’s fundraiser!
  • Survey: 17 Million Americans May Have Driven Drunk in the Last Year (Bloomberg)
  • More Car Culture News: More Toyotas Dangerous (WSJ)
  • Victory in the Valley!  LADOT to Install 2 More Miles of Bike Lanes on Wilbur (LADOT Bike Blog)
  • Some Progress on Train to LAX (Curbed)
  • Giant Grand Avenue Project Short on Funds (LAT)
  • Delays for Hollywood Target (LAist)
  • Where You Can and Can’t Ride a Bike on the Sidewalk in South Bay (LADOT Bike Blog)
  • Scooter Riders Seem to Think It’s Reasonable to Motor in the Bike Lane (Transpo Nation)
  • CicLAvia Gives You a Public Places To Do List for 10/10/10
  • HOV Widening Project for the I-10 Underway (Daily News)
  • CARnage Claims Nun, Wounds Ambassador and Priest on Mullholland Highway (Daily News)
  • Comrades!  Our Navy Is Ready! (Holy Kaw)

More headlines at Streetsblog Capitol Hill

  • That Curbed article is on the proposed Crenshaw Line between Crenshaw/Expo and LAX. One post-30/10 item is extending the Crenshaw Line north to Hollywood/Highland.

    Here’s a link to a map or possible alignments:

    http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v205/coachocd/Crenshawnorth-1.jpg

    The choosing among these routes is unlikely to occur until Metro makes up its mind firmly about the long-term future of the Santa Monica Blvd. spur of the Westside subway extension connecting the Purple Line to Hollywood.

    If the spur is abandoned, then I think running the Crenshaw Line north on San Vicente to Santa Monica Blvd. then over to Hollywood/Highland would be very attractive. Metro will have already spent a lot of money studying the Santa Monica Blvd. portion of the alignment and rail used to run their and on San Vicente Blvd. as well. As an alternative, having the alignment run up/down Fairfax would be attractive and delicious since the Red Line was originally supposed to run north on Fairfax before Hancock Park NIMBYs thwarted the project through Congressman Henry Waxman’s obstructionism.

    If the Santa Monica Blvd. spur is abandoned I do not believe Metro would choose a northernly route all the way up LaBrea, because you’d miss the higher ridership potential further west. The Santa Monica Blvd./San Vicente alignment would allow for a stop at Beverly Center / Cedar-Sinai area while the Fairfax alignment would allow for a stop at the Grove / Farmer’s Market area.

    If the Santa Monica Blvd. spur of the westside subway extension is retained in the long-term, then a straight shot up LaBrea might then be attractive as an alignment as it is sort of halfway between La Cienega/Beverly Center and Vermont.

    However, we will probably have to wait for Metro to decide what its long-term intentions are for the Santa Monica Blvd. spur is before it decides the northern extension of the Crenshaw Line, and as all of this is likely after the 30/10 plan, one could only speculate as to when such a decision might be made.

  • It appears that the silver line has had big changes:

    Major delays, the full project was to be done by december 2010, now its december 2011. All references to better off peak frequencies have been removed.

    http://www.metro.net/projects/silverline/