Today’s Headlines

  • Crossing Guard Beaten, Robbed for Doing Job (LA_Now)
  • Bus Service Changes Coming on 12/12 (The Source)
  • L.A.’s Bridges: Not That Safe, Probably Won’t Collapse (CBS2)
  • City’s Fee Increase to Use Community Gardens Is Shortsighted (City Watch)
  • The Tiny Little Eight Lane 91 Freeway Finally Gets Another Lane (LAT)
  • Santa Monica Working on New Bike Laws (Gary Rides Bikes)
  • Republican Socal Congressman Tries to Undermine Ca. HSR Plans (Infrastructurist)
  • Monrovia Rail Station Might Comeback as Part of Gold Line Eastside Extension (Patch)
  • Alpern: Some Ideas to Make Our Parks Fiscally Sustainable (City Watch)
  • Shocker: Extreme Heat Events Rise with Sprawl (NRDC Switchboard)

More headlines at Streetsblog Capitol Hill

  • Joseph E

    “Monrovia Rail Station Might Comeback as Part of Gold Line EASTSIDE Extension” should read “FOOTHILL extension”.

    Also note that the 91 freeway is not just “8 lanes”, it’s EVEN WIDER. It had 4 “free” lanes each way, and 2 toll lanes in the middle on each side, for 12 lanes total. Now it has 13 (or 14?) lanes total:

    http://maps.google.com/maps?hl=en&q=corona+ca&ie=UTF8&hq=&hnear=Corona,+Riverside,+California&ll=33.87044,-117.668788&spn=0.001212,0.002283&t=k&z=19

    Consider that those lanes are capable of handling abou 12,000 cars in one direction per hour (or about 14,000 people at typical rush hour occupancy rates).

    If only there were a 3-track railway nearby with passenger train service. That could handle over 30,000 people in one hour, in one direction, on only one one track (with trains every 3 minutes) (saving one for freight or express trains, and one for passsenger service in the other direction). Perhaps we could avoid fututure widenings. Nah, I’m just dreaming: http://maps.google.com/maps?hl=en&q=corona+ca&ie=UTF8&hq=&hnear=Corona,+Riverside,+California&ll=33.87466,-117.672281&spn=0.001211,0.002283&t=k&z=19 (Yes, those are the Metrolink tracks)

  • I think that bridge safety article is deceptive. Though I can’t seem to find the actual report referenced – which should be somewhere on a city website?? Can anyone find it? (not on Public Works agendas, nor Public Works press releases, Google doesn’t show it)

    This time may be different, but, in the past, when the city of Los Angeles says a bridge is “unsafe” it generally means that someone in a car going 70 mph perpendicular to the railing can’t smash into the railing without going through the railing. Then, to make the bridge “safe” the city tears out a beautiful ~40-foot-wide roadway bridge, and puts in an ugly ~100+foot-wide roadway replacement and says it’s now “safe.” (Of course, it’s pretty difficult to go 70mph on a 40′ wide bridge… but once it’s widened to freeway dimensions, then folks can really speed.)

    The “safe” stuff doesn’t refer to collision data, to injuries or deaths of drivers, passengers, pedestrians or cyclists… all of whom , I would assert, are less safe on a higher-speeds racetrack-freeway bridge than they are on the existing gorgeous historic bridges.

    Beware when the city says the bridges are unsafe – it’s probably coming from someone who wants to make a buck tearing out a great historic bridge.

    (Shameless plug: everyone should come on Joe’s historic bridges tour this Friday 12/3 and next Friday 12/10 – see http://lacreekfreak.wordpress.com/2010/11/24/twain-historic-bridges-tours-december-3-and-10/ )