The Brief

Self-driving cars seem to be taking over the streets of Los Angeles as Waymo continues to expand throughout the county, including in Santa Monica, West Hollywood, and Culver City.

More than 150,000 people signed up for the waitlist this past March for a chance to catch one of the autonomous rides, according to Waymo. The app is still invite only, so you’ll need to secure a special code from the company to cut in line. Otherwise, you’ll be notified when they’re ready to welcome new riders.

According to Waymo, the cars have more than 20 billion miles of simulated driving experience, using detailed custom maps and its advanced suite of sensors to get you to your destination. But there are reports noting the self-driving cars sometimes run into issues with unprotected left turns and rain-soaked roads.

The current Waymo operating area as of September 5, 2024.

(

Screenshot from Waymo website

)

So is the unique, futuristic concept all it's cracked up to be? Well, my colleague Kevin Tidmarsh and I put it to the test — the good, the bad, and the ugly.

The set-up

We teamed up to go roundtrip from downtown L.A. to Koreatown using Waymo. The idea was to give the cars relatively challenging routes full of potential obstacles — one-way streets, unprotected lefts and all, right during rush hour.

The first ride was called shortly after 3 p.m. on a Friday from South Spring Street to Hobart Boulevard. The Waymo took about 17 minutes to arrive and cost us just under $20. That was about the same price as other rideshare options, but a much longer wait.

We jumped in the second ride back to downtown shortly after 4 p.m. This one took five minutes to arrive, mostly because it was the exact same car, and also cost us about $20. That was about $6 cheaper than Uber or Lyft.

The positives

Both the pick-ups and drop-offs were convenient. We were able to find the cars, and the cars were able to find us — in public parking lots that were mostly empty. For our first ride, that meant we had to walk a bit farther than originally intended, but the car accounted for the distance and gave us a few extra minutes to get there.

The door handles are only accessible after you hit an unlock button in the app, which can be a bit confusing for first-time riders, but is helpful from a safety standpoint.

Now, the car was quite nice. It was spotless, there were two easily accessible charging ports, a pair of screens in the back and front, as well as several curated playlists to choose from for the roughly 15 minute ride.

Waymo uses a fleet of Jaguar electric cars, so yes, compared to my hand-me-down Honda CR-V, it’s a big upgrade.

As you approach your Waymo for a ride, your initials are displayed on the rotating object on top of the car.

(

Makenna Sievertson

/

LAist

)

A robotic voice welcomed us as we slid in the seats, and Kevin, my partner in crime, said it “smells like a Macy’s.” The crisp, clean, and noticeably inoffensive business casual clothes section though, not the mid-priced perfume department.

While the driving wasn’t always so smooth (we’ll get to this, trust me) there were a few notable positives.

The Waymo always used its blinker, which is better than some drivers in the city.

It also stopped slowly and gently at most stop lights, leaving an appropriate amount of space between us and the crosswalk.

The screens mapped every single vehicle, scooter, bike, and person in the car’s immediate vicinity, tracking them like little video game characters so we knew what was going on around us.

It was very responsive to obstacles, almost too responsive, and it would regularly readjust the wheel to avoid anything even remotely in our way, making for an occasionally rough ride.

The negatives

The car was comfortable, but the driving didn’t start out strong. Let’s just say it did things the DMV wouldn’t want a human driver to do.

As we were leaving the downtown L.A. area, we almost immediately ran a stop light. To the car’s credit, it was yellow when we entered the intersection, but it clearly didn’t intend to slow down or stop. It also didn’t speed up from our consistent 25 mph cruise to try and beat the yellow.

“It was, like, barely legal, if it was legal,” Kevin said as we passed.

“That definitely felt ticket worthy,” I replied.

Kevin Tidmarsh taps the "start ride" button in a self-driving Waymo car in Koreatown on Friday, August 30.

(

Makenna Sievertson

/

LAist

)

While Waymo did use its blinker, we noticed that it sometimes was signaling in the wrong direction. The car also seemed to prefer to change lanes in the middle of an intersection, which isn’t illegal, but also isn’t recommended.

It regularly drove in dedicated bus lanes and struggled to respond to someone attempting to parallel park, inching closer and closer to the car while they tried to reverse into the spot. It also casually drove down the middle of two lanes at one point.

Again, the car was responsive to potential obstacles, which meant we had some jarring and sudden stops along the way. If a pedestrian stepped into the street on the opposite end of traffic, or a mail delivery vehicle was parked slightly in the lane, the Waymo seemed to slam on the brakes.

And it did feel a little strange to be in the backseat of a car that so many people were staring at. We got enthusiastic waves from small children and many lingering looks from people around us. But we’ll never really know whether they were annoyed with, or amused by, the self-driving set-up.

A driver looks at a Waymo autonomous self-driving Jaguar driving along a street near Venice Beach on March 14, 2024 in Los Angeles, California.

(

Mario Tama

/

Getty Images North America

)

Final thoughts

Overall, although the driving was occasionally questionable, it did feel safe.

Neither of us felt completely at ease during the first trip, analyzing the Waymo’s every move for signs of trouble.

“I’m watching every car that passes with bated breath, just like how is it going to handle it,” Kevin said. “To be honest, sometimes it handles it well, sometimes it doesn’t.”

“I’m watching more intently than I would if it was a human driver,” I said. “Part of it is curiosity, but part of it is [being] scared.”

What the Waymo screens show when you're taking a ride, including a detailed map of every vehicle, person, bike, and scooter around you.

(

Makenna Sievertson

/

LAist

)

But we calmed down by the second round, at least enough to enjoy a Sabrina Carpenter song on the pop preset station (the driverless cars are great for karaoke with EDM, Disney hits, and Bollywood stations — here’s an idea for another late-night talk show segment).

Our verdict: We’d consider calling one of the self-driving cars if we weren’t in a rush to get home and they continued to be a cheaper option. But a share of your payment (plus tips) won’t be going to human drivers, as with most ride-hailing apps.

“There were a couple points that were a little bit hairy,” Kevin said. “There were some decisions it made that I wouldn’t have made as a driver … but there were lots of parts of the experience that definitely did make me feel comfortable.”

However, there’s a notable knock against the service now — Waymo doesn’t have as many cars on the road as other rideshare options, and its routes are limited to nearly 80 square miles of L.A. County.

At least we know our fears were mostly unfounded, Waymo can handle one-way streets or unprotected left turns pretty dang well.

L.A., you have a big choice to make this year. Mayor Karen Bass is running for a second term in office, and there's a long list of others — including City Councilmember Nithya Raman, former reality star Spencer Pratt, community organizer Rae Huang and tech entrepreneur Adam Miller — lined up to run against her.

The election is June 2. If any one candidate for mayor gets more than 50% of the vote, they'll win the election outright. If nobody meets that threshold, the top two vote-getters will compete in a runoff Nov. 3.

LAist and The LA Local are preparing to ask the candidates questions that will shape our voter guides closer to the June election. We want to make sure we're asking the right ones.

So tell us: What are the issues and questions you want the mayoral candidates to address?

Share your thoughts in the survey below.

The Los Angeles Unified School District is officially on the hook for providing high-dosage tutoring to students after a judge approved a settlement reached last fall.

After being accused of denying students their right to equitable education during pandemic shutdowns, the district must now provide 100,000 students — more than a quarter of the district’s TK-12 students — with three years of high-dosage tutoring under a court-approved settlement, amounting to more than 10 million hours. District staff and outside vendors will provide students with a mix of virtual and in-person sessions.

“The District is conducting a program evaluation of the tutoring program, which will explore variation in the implementation, take-up, and impact on student outcomes across a range of tutoring models and vendors,” LAUSD said in a statement to EdSource.

The tutoring mandate stems from a court-approved settlement reached in October and finalized last month in Shaw et al. v. LAUSD et al., a lawsuit filed during the Covid-19 pandemic that alleged that only 60% of the district’s students participated in virtual instruction during the spring 2020 semester, denying them “basic educational equality guaranteed to them by the California Constitution.”

LAUSD would continue to use its already existing high-dose tutoring eligibility criteria to determine which students receive the support. The district did not specify how it would measure the program’s success.

The settlement

The high-dosage tutoring that Los Angeles Unified maintains it has been providing relies on money from the Expanded Learning Opportunities Program (ELOP). The lawsuit, which includes other supports outlined in the settlement, gained final approval on Feb. 18 and is intended to help close learning gaps and improve academic performance.

The method specifically caters to students’ individual needs and provides either small group or one-on-one support that complements what they learn in the classroom, according to the National Student Support Accelerator at Stanford University.

“Evidence does suggest that that kind of effort would boost student outcomes,” said Morgan Polikoff, a USC professor of education.

“But I think it’s not likely to fully solve the problem, both because it’s missing a portion of the student population — a pretty sizable one — and also because I don’t know if that’s enough hours to solve the problem,” he said, referring to the fact that only a quarter of the student population will receive these services.

Ned Hillenbrand, a partner with Kirkland & Ellis LLP and one of the lawyers representing the plaintiffs, emphasized the importance of accountability moving forward.

“Our families understood that these issues affected students across the district. They admirably pursued remedial programs for those students as well as their own children,” Hillenbrand said in the statement.

“Now that the court has approved the settlement, our goal is to hold LAUSD accountable and to maximize the benefits students receive during the three-year enforcement period.”

Challenges with access

After the pandemic hit, Judith Larson, a plaintiff in the case, said she waited six months for a school computer to arrive, navigated connectivity challenges and even paid out of pocket for tutoring for her daughter. And one of the mentors struggled to help because she learned math in an entirely different way.

Aida Vega found it difficult to access LAUSD’s tutoring services for her daughter, who struggled academically during the pandemic but eventually graduated. But Vega had to take on an extra job to pay for the support.

“I did have the opportunity as a mom to be able to help my student that year because it was just her at that moment. I paid for her,” she said in Spanish. “But other parents had three, four children in schools and didn’t have that opportunity to pay. And now those students aren’t studying.”

LAUSD’s tutoring webpage says schools will contact families whose students qualify, and that parents can contact their local school sites for more information.

But Walt Gersón Rodríguez, the vice president of Innovate Public Schools, which supported parents in the suit, emphasized the importance of improving access, so parents and students don’t have to embark on a “scavenger hunt” to find them.

“My concern would be that this information doesn’t reach the parents; their children don’t get the service and support,” Rodríguez said. “And then, we have another generation of students that either graduate or don’t graduate and don’t go on to college and get a job or career in a competitive economy that we have today.”

Despite LAUSD’s gains in standardized test scores, which showed students are performing better than they did prepandemic, Polikoff noted that students are still “behind where they would have been had Covid not happened.”

Rodríguez added that some graduates have struggled to meet A-G requirements, courses necessary for students to be eligible to attend University of California or California State University campuses, and are having a hard time getting into college or entering the workforce.

If it weren’t for the setbacks, Larson said her daughter would have loved to attend UCLA. But she still considers herself one of the fortunate ones.

“Many moms and dads that I know, that one [dream] we share is we need to do better and change for our children,” Larson said. “But here we are taking steps, one at a time.”

The Los Angeles County Board of Supervisors on Tuesday agreed to pay $4.9 million to settle four lawsuits by people who were injured in collisions with Sheriff’s Department patrol cars.

The payouts come amid increased scrutiny of crashes by law enforcement officers. It has emerged as a major national issue, with cities across the country paying out hundreds of millions of dollars in settlements and verdicts because of vehicle collisions involving officers, deputies or agents.

In the latest L.A. County payouts, tied to collisions that happened between 2018 and 2020, all plaintiffs said deputies were negligent when they crashed into their cars.

County supervisors settled the lawsuits during an open-session vote Tuesday. The county admitted no wrongdoing.

A collision in Paramount

Freddy Ontiveros and Antonio De La Cruz Zamora were hit from behind in 2018 in the city of Paramount, according to their lawsuit filed in Superior Court. They alleged in the suit that a sheriff’s deputy “rear ended the vehicle which was stopped behind plaintiff's vehicle, pushing the vehicle into plaintiff's vehicle causing plaintiff personal injuries and property damage.”

The deputy was responding to a call of a robbery in progress and had activated the lights and sirens on the vehicle.

A review of the Crash Data Retrieval system found the deputy was traveling south on Paramount Boulevard at 75 mph and slowed to 35 mph at the time of the collision, according to a corrective action plan presented to the board Tuesday.

“The collision investigation concluded that the deputy sheriff caused the collision as he was driving at an unsafe speed for traffic conditions,” the plan stated.

The case settled for $1.75 million.

Later, the Lakewood Sheriff’s Station — which covers Paramount — conducted a review of all traffic collisions for the calendar year 2020 through the end of 2024. The audit revealed there were 196 total collisions for this five-year period, 129 of which were classified as preventable and 67 classified as non-preventable.

“To improve employee safety and reduce the Department's liability and exposure, Lakewood supervisors continue to conduct bi-weekly briefings which focus on the importance of safe driving as well as abiding by all the rules of the road when operating county vehicles,” the plan stated.

Other collisions

In a separate incident, Shannon Story had a green light at Palmdale intersection on Oct. 27, 2019. According to her complaint, a deputy ran a red light and crashed into Story’s vehicle as she entered the intersection. The impact of the collision caused Story’s vehicle to crash into the corner wall of a 7-Eleven convenience store.

“Plaintiff sustained significant injuries as a result of the collision,” her complaint read. She settled the case for $1.2 million.

In another case filed by Jose Gaitan, he says a sheriff’s deputy in a department vehicle rear-ended his car. LAist was not immediately able to get further details on the crash. He settled for $450,000.

The summary corrective action plan for a fourth collision describes how a deputy was backing up to make contact with a suspect when he ran into a car driven by Alejandra Gonzalez. The deputy “reversed approximately two to three feet and collided into the Plaintiff’s vehicle at approximately 5-10 mph.”

Gonzalez settled for $1.5 million.

With only 100 days to go before the FIFA World Cup, what should have been a period of celebration is turning instead into one of turmoil.

The U.S. and Israel attacks on Iran have raised major questions about whether the Persian country will withdraw from the 48-squad tournament — a step no other country has taken after qualifying since 1950 when Scotland, as well as others such as India and Turkey, decided not to participate in part tied to travel costs to the games in Brazil.

But Iran's participation is not the only uncertainty. Violence in Mexico following the killing of a cartel boss sparked questions about the country's ability to attract fans, while concerns about funding for U.S. host cities have also flared up in recent weeks.

And then there is the outrage over the ticket prices, and controversy surrounding President Donald Trump and his administration's policies, including military actions and immigration enforcement.

Angst in the runup to World Cup tournaments is nothing new. Concerns about violence preceded the 2010 and 2014 World Cup tournaments in South Africa and Brazil, while the selection of Russia and Qatar as hosts for the last previous two tournaments also sparked controversies of their own.

But no World Cup men's tournament has been this big before, with 48 teams set to play 104 matches across the U.S., Canada and Mexico. And no recent World Cup has been staged amidst so much global geopolitical uncertainty.

Here are the top areas of concern ahead of the 2026 World Cup.

Will Iran withdraw?

It was the top question surrounding the FIFA World Cup as the U.S. and Israel went to war with Iran this weekend. So far there's no indication that Iran plans to withdraw, whether to boycott it or for other reasons.

Iran is one of the stronger squads in Asia and is set to play its seventh World Cup this year.

Iran Football Federation President Mehdi Taj acknowledged the uncertainty on Iranian TV, according to Reuters and other media.

"What we can say now is that due to this attack and its viciousness, it is far from our expectations that we can look at the World Cup with hope," Taj said according to the wire agency.

Iran is set to play two games against New Zealand and Belgium in Los Angeles, home to a large Iranian diaspora community. The country will also play Egypt in Seattle.

FIFA has not directly weighed in. Its general secretary, Mattias Grafstrom, said on Sunday the organization would continue to "monitor the developments around all issues around the world."

"We had the final draw in Washington, where all teams participated. Our focus is to have a safe Word Cup with everyone participating," Grafstrom said.

Whether Iran participates at the World Cup may be in doubt, but at least one thing is certain: its fans will find it difficult to travel to the U.S. given that Iran is one of a handful of countries that faces a travel ban, though it doesn't affect the team and its coaches.

Iran's players pose for a team picture ahead of a FIFA World Cup 2026 qualifying game against North Korea at the Azadi Sports Complex in Tehran on June 10, 2025.

(

Atta Kenare

/

AFP via Getty Images

)

Will Mexico be safe for visitors?

The flare-up of violence by armed groups across the country after Mexico killed cartel boss Nemesio Oseguera Cervantes last month has sparked concerns about safety and security at one of the co-hosts of the tournament.

Mexican President Claudia Sheinbaum has asserted there will be no risks when the country stages the World Cup, while FIFA President Gianni Infantino has expressed his "total confidence" in Mexico.

Mexico is set to host 13 games for the World Cup, including four in Guadalajara, in the state of Jalisco where Oseguera Cervante's group is primarily based and where much of the violence took place.

Concerns about violence are not new. Questions about safety also were raised ahead of the South Africa 2010 World Cup as well as Brazil in 2014 — and both countries ended up successfully hosting their respective tournaments.

Will American host cities get funding?

Concerns about finances are a perennial concern ahead of major sports events — and the U.S. is proving no different.

The 11 American host cities still have not received $625 million in federal funding for security costs that are critical to staging the tournament, including in Foxborough, Mass. The funding was supposed to be provided by the Department of Homeland Security through the Federal Emergency Management Agency, or FEMA.

A FEMA spokesperson directed NPR to a recent posting on X from DHS Secretary Kristi Noem noting that "FEMA was in the final stages of reviewing applications to ensure proper oversight" but that the partial shutdown affecting the agency — for which she blamed Democrats — had put "significant portions of the FEMA staff on administrative leave."

For some host cities, the matter is becoming urgent. The White House FIFA World Cup Task Force has not yet responded to NPR's queries.

"Without receiving this money, it could be catastrophic for our planning and coordination," Ray Martinez, the chief operating officer for the Miami Host Committee, told a congressional hearing according to Politico.

Will fans be priced out of the tournament?

Perhaps no issue more directly affects fans than the staggering high costs they are facing to attend the World Cup.

FIFA has set the highest ticket prices ever for a World Cup, making tickets to the tournament unaffordable for many fans. Its use of dynamic pricing has also sparked controversy; the most expensive tickets to the final in New Jersey initially sold at over $6,300 only to jump to nearly $8,700 in later sales.

The MetLife Stadium in East Rutherford, N.J., is set to host eight games in the 2026 World Cup, including the final set for July 19, 2026.

(

Al Bello

/

Getty Images North America

)

Not only are ticket prices high — the cost of travel and lodging has surged. Yet despite all the challenges, FIFA claimed it had received over 500 million ticket requests in its last sales window.

That said, FIFA has provided little additional information to back up its claims, making it difficult to determine whether the demand is concentrated just in high profile games such as Colombia against Portugal in Miami or mainly focused in high-profile teams such as Argentina.

Will President Trump and his policies deter fans?

Perhaps the biggest unknown is the effect that Trump and his administration's policies will have on attending the World Cup.

The administration's travel restrictions not only affects Iranian fans, they also hit fans of three other countries that have already qualified for the tournament: Senegal, Ivory Coast and Haiti.

President Trump and his policies remain controversial both at home and abroad. Earlier this year, when Trump threatened to invade Greenland, some European officials raised the prospect of a boycott though the moves never prospered. Even former FIFA President Sepp Blatter encouraged fans to "stay away" from the U.S.

And the latest U.S. and Israel attacks against Iran — which follow the U.S. capture of Venezuela's Nicolas Maduro — have brought renewed attention to FIFA's controversial awarding of its peace prize at the tournament's draw ceremony in Washington, D.C., in December.

The U.S. has already seen a sharp decrease in visitors for a number of reasons, including increased scrutiny at the border (such as a requirement to potentially share social media posts), as well as unease about violence because of high-profile killings involving U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement.

Oxford Economics projects a rise in visitors tied to the World Cup, so the number of visitors could at least partially recover this year, though other research points to a reduced number of visitors from Europe to the U.S. this year.

It's yet another sign of uncertainty in what is set to be the biggest-ever tournament with only 100 days to go.
Copyright 2026 NPR