Steve Gordon, left, who was appointed by Gov. Gavin Newsom to head the California Department of Motor Vehicles, discusses a report detailing efforts to improve customer services.
(
Rich Pedroncelli
/
AP Photo
)
Topline:
Over the past decade, nearly 40,000 people have died and more than 2 million have been injured on California roads.
Why it matters: As an ongoing CalMatters investigation has shown this year, time and again those crashes were caused by repeat drunk drivers, chronic speeders and motorists with well-documented histories of recklessness behind the wheel. Year after year, officials with the power to do something about it — the governor, legislators, the courts, the Department of Motor Vehicles — have failed to act.
Lawmakers say next session could bring change: A number of lawmakers said they are aware of the carnage on our roadways and plan to do something about it this coming legislative session, maybe.
Read on... for how a bill to fight DUIs failed.
At a California State Senate committee hearing this year, the director of Caltrans, Tony Tavares, showed a simple chart that might have caused the assembled lawmakers some alarm.
It was a series of black bars representing the death toll on California's roads in each of the past 20 years.
Fatalities had been falling until 2010, when the bars started getting longer and longer. A blood-red arrow shot up over the growing lines, charting their rise, as if to make sure nobody could miss the more than 60% increase in deaths.
“We are working to reverse the overall trend,” Tavares said.
No legislators asked about the chart. No one asked the director what, exactly, his agency was doing about it.
Over the next three hours, the Senate Transportation Committee members asked instead about homeless encampments along roads, gas tax revenue, gender identity on ID’s and planning for the 2028 Olympics in Los Angeles.
The chart presented by then-CalTrans Director Tony Tavares at the March 11, 2025 Senate Transportation Committee hearing.
The committee chair said it was the legislature’s first informational hearing on the state’s transportation system in more than a decade. Yet only two senators — both Republicans with little legislative power in a state controlled by Democrats — even asked about dangerous driving, one following up with questions about a deadly stretch of road in her district and the other about a small California Highway Patrol program to target egregious behavior behind the wheel.
Over the past decade, nearly 40,000 people have died and more than 2 million have been injured on California roads. As an ongoing CalMatters investigation has shown this year, time and again those crashes were caused by repeat drunk drivers, chronic speeders and motorists with well-documented histories of recklessness behind the wheel. Year after year, officials with the power to do something about it — the governor, legislators, the courts, the Department of Motor Vehicles — have failed to act.
The silence, in the face of a threat that endangers nearly every Californian, is damning.
California has some of the weakest DUI laws in the nation. Here, DUI-related deaths have been rising more than twice as fast as the rest of the country. But this fall, a state bill to strengthen DUI penalties was gutted at the last minute.
When it comes to speeding — one of the biggest causes of fatal crashes — again the legislature has done little. For two years in a row, bills that would have required the use of speed-limiting technology on vehicles have failed.
Lawmakers did pass legislation a couple years ago that allows the use of speed cameras. But it’s just a pilot project in a handful of jurisdictions.
Marc T. Vukcevich, director of state policy for advocacy group Streets For All, considers it a win — but a modest one.
“This shit is not enough to deal with the size and severity and the complexity of the problem we have when it comes to violence on our roadways,” Vukcevich said.
Erika Pringle, at right, embraces Allison Lyman, whose son died in a collision, during a candlelight vigil as part of The World Day of Remembrance for Road Traffic Victims at the Capitol in Sacramento on Nov. 16, 2025.
(
Fred Greaves
/
CalMatters
)
Gov. Gavin Newsom declined an interview request. Last year, he vetoed a bill that would have required technology that alerts drivers when they’re speeding.
The state DMV, which is under his authority, has wide latitude to take dangerous drivers off the road. But it routinely allows drivers with extreme histories of dangerous driving to continue to operate on our roadways, where many go on to kill.
Steve Gordon, whom Newsom chose to run the agency in 2019, won’t talk about it. He has declined or ignored CalMatters requests for an interview.
The agency simply released a statement from him in March, after our first interview request, touting modernization efforts that reflect an “ongoing commitment to enhancing accountability and transparency while continually refining our processes to ensure California’s roads are safer for everyone.”
Neither Newsom nor Gordon has announced any major changes since then.
How a bill to fight DUIs fails in Sacramento
For a brief moment earlier this year, Colin Campbell thought the state might finally do something about the scourge that changed his life one night in 2019.
A repeat drunk driver slammed into his Prius on the way to the family’s new home in Joshua Tree, killing his 17-year-old daughter, Ruby, and 14-year-old son, Hart.
Campbell, a writer and director from Los Angeles, began advocating for California to join most other states and create a law requiring in-car breathalyzers for anyone convicted of a DUI.
At first he was encouraged when the bill coasted through two legislative committees. But then came the roadblocks.
The ACLU opposed the measure, calling it “a form of racialized wealth extraction,” according to a Senate Public Safety Committee report from July. In California, people forced to use the devices have to pay about $100 a month to a private company to rent them, though there’s supposed to be a sliding fee scale based on income.
Then the DMV told lawmakers that it could not “complete the necessary programming” for the law, citing possible technology delays and costs of $15 million or more.
The bill was gutted. California couldn’t do something that nearly three dozen other states could.
Campbell called the sudden reversal a shameful example of forsaking public safety for bureaucracy.
“Our lives were destroyed that night,” he said. “If these people's children had been killed by a drunk driver, there is no way they would be objecting to this.”
Even if the law had passed, DMV data suggests that California judges would have mostly ignored it.
State law says judges have to require in-car breathalyzers for people convicted of repeat DUIs. Last month, the DMV issued a report reinforcing what a similar report laid out two years earlier. Judges across the state ordered the devices just one-third of the time for repeat offenders. In 14 counties, they ordered the devices less than 10% of the time for second-time DUI offenders. The counties are: Alameda, Colusa, Glenn, Lassen, Los Angeles, Madera, Mono, Plumas, Sacramento, San Luis Obispo, Santa Cruz, Sierra, Tulare and Yuba.
DMV officials did not answer questions about what, if anything, the agency was doing about it.
We reached out to all 14 counties’ courts. Only eight responded to questions.
Chris Ruhl, executive officer for the Glenn County Superior Court, said the court is looking at local changes.
“Given the light CalMatters is bringing to this issue … the Glenn Court will review its current DUI sentencing practices,” according to a statement.
Glenn was one of a number of counties — including LA, Alameda and San Luis Obispo — that also suggested it wasn’t their judges’ responsibility to issue a court order. They said they only needed to notify the DMV of the convictions.
However, the law is clear: It’s the judge’s job to order the offender to use the device, said Jerry Hill, the retired Bay Area Democrat who wrote the bill.
When he worked in the Capitol, Hill said he also saw little urgency to rein in intoxicated driving.
“If you ask any legislator, they are going to say it’s a terrible, terrible thing,” he said.
But he said committee chairs and staff members who set the tone and write analyses often shied away from increasing criminal penalties.
“That’s where we see a lack of understanding, in my view, of the devastating effect of drunk driving in California,” he said.
Lawmakers say next session could bring change
A number of lawmakers said they are aware of the carnage on our roadways and plan to do something about it this coming legislative session, maybe.
Sen. Bob Archuleta, a Democrat from Norwalk who sits on the Transportation Committee, lost his granddaughter to a drunk driver just before Christmas last year. He said he recently met with representatives from Mothers Against Drunk Driving and is considering possible bills.
“This is not a Republican issue, a Democrat issue, an independent issue — or political issue. This is a life-saving issue,” he said. “We should all take it as seriously as the family that lost a loved one.”
Democratic Assemblymember Nick Schultz of Burbank said he is considering introducing at least one measure next year to address loopholes and weaknesses in state law.
Schultz, who started his career prosecuting DUI cases in Oregon and now chairs the Assembly’s Public Safety Committee, said he is weighing several potential measures that would address issues CalMatters highlighted in its reporting this year, including lengthening license suspensions after fatal crashes, lowering the bar to charge repeat drunk drivers with a felony, strengthening breathalyzer requirements and making sure vehicular manslaughter convictions get reported to the DMV.
“People are tired of seeing the needless loss of life on our roadways,” Schultz said. “There’s no way to legislatively make someone make the right choice. But what we can do is create an incentive structure where there are consequences for bad decisions.”
In the absence of more leadership at the state level, road safety advocates — many of whom joined the cause after losing a loved one to a preventable car crash — are taking it on themselves to try to force change. They’re meeting with lawmakers and officials, holding public events, telling their stories.
At far right, Fumiko Torres speaks about losing Rayanna Diaz while standing alongside other family members during a candlelight vigil as part of The World Day of Remembrance for Road Traffic Victims event at the Capitol in Sacramento on Nov. 16, 2025.
(
Fred Greaves
/
CalMatters
)
Allison Lyman stands at a table honoring her son Connor, who was killed in a traffic collision, before the start of a candlelight vigil as part of the World Day of Remembrance for Road Traffic Victims at the Capitol in Sacramento on Nov. 16, 2025.
(
Fred Greaves
/
CalMatters
)
Jennifer Levi started working with MADD after her son, Braun, was killed in May while he was out walking with friends in Manhattan Beach. She said they’d only recently relocated to the area after the family home burned down in the Palisades fire, destroying “all of Braun’s pictures, videos from when he was born.”
The driver who killed her son was allegedly intoxicated and had a prior DUI arrest.
“The worst day of my life is now my life’s work. I will not stop until California changes,” Levi said.
In the months since her son’s death, Levi said, she’s met with any officials or influential people she could — current and former lawmakers, district attorneys, local council members, a lobbyist, and members of the media. Among the changes she wants: to make it easier to charge repeat DUI offenders with murder when they kill someone, to make fatal DUIs a violent felony and to increase penalties for hit-and-run fatalities. As CalMatters reported in October, California law often treats drunken vehicular manslaughter as a nonviolent crime with minimal time behind bars.
Levi calls her push to reform the system “Braun’s Bill.”
Many grieving families share a similar goal: for those they lost to be remembered by a state and society that seem indifferent. That desire was on display last month during an event in Sacramento to mark the World Day of Remembrance for Road Traffic Victims.
On a cold Sunday evening in mid-November, after a break in the rain, dozens of relatives of people killed in car crashes gathered on the dark steps of the state Capitol for a candlelight vigil. They fought to keep photos on posterboards upright in the gale-force winds. Family by family, they ascended the steps, stood above a display of orange cones lit with strands of white lights and addressed the onlookers, talking about their loved ones and what was lost — children left without their mother, mothers without their children, a wife left without the love of her life.
“Every day I live and I wake up and I pretend like I’m happy. Every day I wish my stairs would make noise. I miss being called mom,” said Angel Dela Cruz, whose 17-year-old son Edward Alvidrez Jr. was hit by a truck while riding a dirt bike in Madera County in 2022.
“I hope we all get justice,” she said.
The event ended with a moment of quiet reflection and a prayer before the families put away their pictures and walked off, the Capitol behind them locked, silent.
CNN, MS NOW and Politico are suing President Donald Trump jointly for violating their constitutional rights after his administration cut off their journalists' access to the White House on Friday. Trump claimed the news outlets were covering him unfairly.
The lawsuit: It cites that the news organizations' First Amendment rights not to be punished by the federal government over their speech — in this instance, their news coverage. It also cites their Fifth Amendment rights to due process: the government cannot take away rights or privileges without any warning or process to intercede or appeal the decision.
Restricting the press: Theodore J. Boutrous, the lead attorney for the news outlets, tells NPR that legal precedents overwhelmingly support the news organizations' case. Among them was a ruling Boutrous secured as attorney for NPR and three Colorado public radio stations. A federal judge found that a White House executive order barring any federal funds from going to the network or other public media outlets was unconstitutional. (Last year, the Republican-led Congress nonetheless pulled back all funding for public media at Trump's urging.) Trump has lost many other legal challenges to his efforts to restrict the press, including in his first term the revocation of press credentials for Jim Acosta, then a CNN White House correspondent. A case filed by the Associated Press is still in the courts. It's over the White House's efforts to punish its refusal to call the Gulf of Mexico by Trump's preferred name of the Gulf of America.
CNN, MS NOW and Politico are suing President Donald Trump jointly for violating their constitutional rights after his administration cut off their journalists' access to the White House. Trump claimed the news outlets were covering him unfairly.
"This ban could not be a more direct assault on the First Amendment nor a more blatant violation of our most fundamental constitutional principles," the lawsuit, filed in federal court in Washington, D.C. Monday, says.
It cites the news organizations' First Amendment rights not to be punished by the federal government over their speech — in this instance, their news coverage. It also cites their Fifth Amendment rights to due process: the government cannot take away rights or privileges without any warning or process to intercede or appeal the decision.
"The President has been explicit that this ban is intended to punish reporting he doesn't like and to intimidate journalists and news organizations covering him and his administration," said the lead attorney for the news outlets, Theodore J. Boutrous of Gibson Dunn, in a statement. "This ban on the free press harms the American people, who are entitled to rigorous, fact-based coverage of the President of the United States."
In response to NPR's request for comment, the White House pointed to a Truth Social message the president posted early Monday: "The White House is not instituting an assault on the Free Press, something which I cherish. It is instituting an assault on the FAKE NEWS, something that has grown like Cancer in our beloved United States of America. It is corrupt, purposeful, pervasive, fully coordinated, and totally out of control. It is a threat to our National Security, and must be stopped, NOW!"
The latest front in larger battle
Boutrous tells NPR that legal precedents overwhelmingly support the news organizations' case.
Among them was a ruling Boutrous secured as attorney for NPR and three Colorado public radio stations. A federal judge found that a White House executive order barring any federal funds from going to the network or other public media outlets was unconstitutional. (Last year, the Republican-led Congress nonetheless pulled back all funding for public media at Trump's urging.)
Trump has lost many other legal challenges to his efforts to restrict the press, including in his first term the revocation of press credentials for Jim Acosta, then a CNN White House correspondent. A case filed by the Associated Press is still in the courts. It's over the White House's efforts to punish its refusal to call the Gulf of Mexico by Trump's preferred name of the Gulf of America.
Trump was not subtle on Friday in explaining why he wanted to punish CNN, MS NOW (formerly MSNBC) and Politico.
In a back-and-forth with reporters at the White House, he said his decision had not been sparked by any specific reporting, but the accumulation of what he called two years of unfair and negative coverage.
"There's something wrong with a country that can allow people to write purposefully negative things," Trump told reporters Friday. "Now, if they want to write them, that's fine, but I don't have to let them into my — into the people's house."
Starting over the weekend, journalists for the three news organizations said their reporting teams were barred from entry, even though they have permanent press passes.
Major tv networks stand by CNN
CNN is among five major television networks that make up what's called the White House video pool, which has provided constant coverage of the president's public appearances for decades. The outlets share the considerable expense and logistical burden of staffing those appearances and share the feed with all. The process ensures there are not myriad cameras crowding smaller spaces at the White House and other places the president appears.
CNN was to offer pool coverage of the president's departure from the White House and his visit to the United Nations in New York City Monday. But CNN was not listed as providing pool coverage on the White House daily guidance. Nor was any other member of the primary video pool — a group made up of ABC, CBS, NBC, Fox and, of course, CNN.
"Effective today, the TV pool will not be covering events designated as pool coverage of the President," Fox News Washington Bureau Chief Bryan Boughton said in a memo, which
was obtained by NPR. "There will be no replacement pool put in place."
Trump famously basks in the glow of TV news lights, coveting the attention they bring even as he rails against the accompanying coverage.
Tommy Evans, NPR's editor in chief, was among the news executives publicly condemning the White House stance and proclaiming solidarity with the three banned outlets. NPR is a key member of the radio feed providing parallel service to their TV counterparts.
"Barring journalists from the White House because the president dislikes their reporting is a blatant violation of the First Amendment, and NPR condemns it without qualification," Evans said in a statement released Sunday. "The American public has a right to know what its government is doing in its name — not only the coverage a president finds flattering, but the full and accurate account of the use of power and public resources."
Trump himself has sued numerous news organizations, including The New York Times, the Wall Street Journal (owned by his political ally, Rupert Murdoch), CNN, the BBC and others.
The Justice Department has aggressively sought to secure reporters' notes and devices as it hunts down the sources of leaks. The Defense Department expelled news organizations, including NPR, from the Pentagon for refusing to promise not to seek information not officially authorized for release. The president's pick as head of the Federal Communications Commission has launched formal investigations of all major television networks, save Fox (also owned by Murdoch). The agency is also investigating NPR.
In this instance, previous judicial rulings would appear to stand against the president.
Trump is correct that there is no constitutional or legal right that requires him to allow any particular journalist — or anyone at all — to report on federal matters from the White House grounds.
Once admitted, journalists cannot be prevented from returning simply because the administration does not like their coverage. That would be "viewpoint discrimination" that the courts have held violate their free speech rights under the First Amendment.
Under a 1977 U.S. Court of Appeals ruling that still holds today, reporters cannot be barred from the White House or denied a permanent White House press pass without a clear explanation from the Secret Service that incorporates due process.
The lawsuit by CNN, MSNOW and Politico is seeking a return of full access to White House for their journalists and to operate the video pool, as previously planned.
Disclosure: This story was written and reported by NPR Media Correspondent David Folkenflik and edited by NPR Acting Chief Business Editor Emily Kopp.Under NPR's protocol for reporting on itself, no corporate official or news executive reviewed this story before it was posted publicly.
Union Station in downtown Los Angeles on February 20, 2025.
(
Patrick T. Fallon
/
AFP via Getty Images
)
Topline:
The Los Angeles County Department of Public Health is warning the public of a potential measles exposure from an unvaccinated individual who traveled through Union Station this month.
Details: People at Union Station during the exposure window of 8 a.m. to noon on Sept. 12 may be at risk of contracting measles seven to 21 days after exposure, county health officials say.
What's next: People who were at Union Station between those hours should monitor for symptoms until Oct. 3.
The Los Angeles County Department of Public Health is warning the public of a potential measles exposure from someone who traveled through Union Station in Downtown Los Angeles earlier this month.
What happened
The unvaccinated passenger arrived at Union Station on Saturday, Sept. 12, by Amtrak train just after 7 a.m. and departed about four hours later on an Amtrak Thruway bus bound for Bakersfield.
People at Union Station during the exposure window of 8 a.m. to noon may be at risk of contracting measles seven to 21 days after exposure. The last day to monitor for symptoms is Oct. 3.
"This case, along with previous measles outbreaks in California this year, serve as reminders of the importance of vaccination against measles," said Dr. Rita Nguyen, assistant state public health officer. "Measles is one of the most contagious infections that can lead to severe lifelong consequences, including permanent brain damage, and can also be fatal, especially for children."
What to watch for
Symptoms of measles include fever, red, watery eyes, and a rash that usually develops several days after other symptoms and typically starts on the face.
As of Sept. 14, a total of 59 measles cases have been reported in California this year. In most cases, patients were unvaccinated or had unknown vaccination status.
Keep up with LAist.
If you're enjoying this article, you'll love our daily newsletter, The LA Report. Each weekday, catch up on the 5 most pressing stories to start your morning in 3 minutes or less.
A major project is reshaping 5 miles of Studebaker
By Barbara Kingsley-Wilson | Long Beach Post
Published September 20, 2026 5:00 AM
A bicyclist makes his way through the Studebaker Road and Spring Street construction zone in Long Beach on Friday, Sept. 4, 2026.
(
Thomas R. Cordova.
/
Long Beach Post
)
Topline:
Long Beach is embarking on its biggest street redevelopment yet, reshaping over five miles of Studebaker Road into bike friendly lanes with other improvements.
Why it matters: Long Beach has been working toward this vision since it adopted its bicycle master plan 25 years ago, now with mounting urgency as auto-related fatalities rise.
Why now: The biggest project so far – the Studebaker Road Transformation Project – is bringing this vision to the doorstep of Studebaker Road residents. But not everyone is a fan.
Imagine a sprawling network of roomy bike lanes, generously landscaped to calm relentless traffic. Think Amsterdam with newer buildings and fewer waterways. That’s been Long Beach’s goal anyway.
Instead of wide post-war boulevards, roads would become slower and leaner, transforming Long Beach into a top-five global cycling city, said former city traffic engineer Paul Van Dyk. “Some of that is tongue-in-cheek, but if you shoot for the moon you land in the stars.”
Long Beach has been working toward this vision since it adopted its bicycle master plan 25 years ago, now with mounting urgency as auto-related fatalities rise. The biggest project so far – the Studebaker Road Transformation Project – is bringing this vision to the doorstep of Studebaker Road residents.
It has drawn mixed reviews.
'The intent of the design is malicious'
“The intent of the design is malicious — it’s immoral,” said Joey Schilling, who drives the road six days a week and wrote a social media post criticizing the project that drew almost 1,000 comments. ”It’s people who do not use the road trying to tell other people how to use the road.”
Amid red cones and barriers, a woman and her dogs navigate the construction zones at Studebaker Road and Willow Street in Long Beach on Friday, Sept. 4, 2026. Photo by Thomas R. Cordova.The $65 million project runs over five miles from Second Street all the way up to Carson Street. It includes bike lanes, greenways and stonescape with fiber-optic cable running underneath. It is crucial to the city’s long-term plan of knitting together 300 miles of bikeways by 2040 to bring bicycle culture to Long Beach, as well as create safer streets.
The massive project funded from 13 federal, state and local agencies, gives a glimpse of what’s to come for Long Beach thoroughfares. The Clark Avenue work is in progress. PacificAvenue and Orange Avenue “backbone” plans are on deck. Now Studebaker Road, the biggest, longest and most expensive, is well underway, spending the most dollars and, arguably, drawing the most resident anger.
Schilling, who lives near Studebaker Road actually does ride his bike to work in Seal Beach and said he is OK with bike lanes in general. However, he says the project is not practical in a community where he says most drive to work. “It’s not a reasonable solution. It’s not even for the greater good, that would be to appease the 95 percent who use their cars. The cost and the benefit do not match up. The cost is too high, the benefit too low.”
Wider lanes, sturdier medians
The Studebaker project features raised bus stops and wider bike lanes than have been seen previously. No more flimsy bollards separating bikes from cars, said Van Dyk, the city traffic engineer who helped usher in the bikeway and traffic-calming street plan before he went on to consult on other urban bike projects.
The green bollards seen on Bellflower Boulevard and Studebaker before the redo often get hit by cars and can resemble thick blades of stomped grass. “People do not like the way they look, and I agree with their frustrations,” said Van Dyk. “That’s why we moved towards those concrete medians.“ He said planners “learned a lot of lessons along the way.”
Studebaker will feature roomier bike lanes – 9 feet wide compared with the old 6-foot-across version. Wider lanes will allow riders to travel two abreast for a better ride, Van Dyk said. It also makes them easier to clean. Debris-filled lanes are a sore spot with bikers.
The old bike lane sweeper the city used to clean narrow paths was notoriously difficult to move and use. (Fourth District Councilmember Daryl Supernaw joked that sightings of the small sweepers were less frequent than Bigfoot.) But a regular street sweeper can get into the broader lanes where it can’t on Broadway and Bellflower south of Atherton. (They actually set a street sweeper in a bike lane before planning and pouring the concrete to make sure it would fit.) Still, protected bike lanes are harder to clean than lanes merely separated by paint and “swept” by passing cars.
David Raslevich, a 41-year-old cyclist who frequently rides on the new lanes on Clark, said he has noticed branches, leaves and other debris. “I feel safer riding with the traffic, because they (cars) move debris out of the way for you.”
Buses stop in traffic, not turnouts
One new component of Studebaker and the other newer lanes are raised bus stops. The new stops designed to accommodate bikes and buses are about five inches off the ground and separated from the road by a curb. Buses will stop in the No. 2 lane, halting traffic behind them, and pick up passengers, instead of easing out of a bus turnout.
Van Dyk said that change evolved from talks with Long Beach Transit, which revealed that buses would sometimes get hit when pulling into traffic. Planners reasoned it’s better to have cars waiting for a bus to pick up passengers instead of forcing a bus waiting to pull into the No. 2 lane.
“It’s math my second grader can do: What’s better, 40 people on a bus wait or four people in cars,” Van Dyke said. “Which is the greatest cost to society? The bus is going to be more efficient.” He also contends the new system is safe; there is less ambiguity as a bus will slow down in front of a car, so the car would be more likely to stop instead of zipping around a protruding bus bumper.
It is too early to know how this plan will play out – the new bus lane curbs on Clark show missing chunks already from drivers that likely didn’t see them. Raslevich said he has seen cars turn into the curb by the raised bus stop. “They don’t know that there’s an island there, so they’re hitting that island, pretty much daily.”
Councilman Supernaw, whose district encompasses the $65 million project, had reservations about the price tag before ultimately supporting it.
'All anyone asked for is a repave'
“All anyone asked for is a repave, to get rid of potholes and have a smooth surface to drive on,” Supernaw said. “Should we just forgo the bike lanes and do a straight repave? The answer was no, we wanna use the grant money for the bike lanes.”
The city saw it as a grander vision, weaving together a puzzle of state and federal grants along with $8.5 million in local sales tax money for new transit stops, sidewalks and curb ramps that improve how all people can move through the city.
“It’s not just ‘I wanna ride a bike for fun.’ People need it to get to work,” said Jocelin Padilla, a spokesperson for the city’s Public Works Department.
'Communication via spraypaint'
A series of community meetings were held in 2024, drawing limited feedback. But when residents later saw painted pavement markings showing the planned curbs and bike lines, “they got involved in a big way,” Supernaw said.
“We call this communication via spraypaint,” said Supernaw. “Constituents see lines marked out and contact the council office.”
Aside from the cost and the bus islands, some residents are frustrated by the execution. Leslie Goldman, who lives near Studebaker and Stearns, said large piles of dirt – at times higher than cars – have blocked residents from crossing the street or seeing oncoming traffic. Some concerns were addressed, including a bus shelter that was added due to feedback from residents.
“We’re not saying we don’t want construction done ever, that’s life in the big city,” she said. But Goldman contends the “assembly line” construction approach, as opposed to the work done in shorter phases, is leading to more “noise, vibration, dust, traffic, blind spots, trash, roadblocks, … All at sporadic intervals unknown to residents. It’s not just an inconvenience, it’s a hardship.”
A 'once-in-a-generation' timeline
Padilla of Public Works acknowledged the hardship, but said the benefits would outweigh the short-term pain. She said doing the work in shorter segments would increase costs and project timelines – not a good thing when it needs to be finished by the Olympics. “This is a once-in-a-generation project,” she said.
Not all residents are wary. “Studebaker is gonna be awesome when it’s done,” said Dan Olsen, who lives near Studebaker and Atherton. “It’s new, it’s fresh, the neighborhood is going to benefit. It’s been a total pothole disaster for so long. … Even though there are catches and hooks, it’s still worth it.”
Long Beach still isn't Amsterdam
Long Beach is not yet Amsterdam; it’s still a patchwork of protected lanes and unprotected ones of varying degrees of newness. But Studebaker should be done in 2027. Pacific Avenue and Orange Avenue are next. The bike lanes and streets won’t uniformly connect, but there will be more of them – Artesia Boulevard to service Jordan High, Clark Avenue near Long Beach City College and now Studebaker. “Long Beach’s cycling network is reaching critical mass,” Van Dyk said.
Van Dyk and other bike proponents say it’s a long game. Amsterdam itself was car-dominated until the 1970s when the Stop de Kindermoord movement was launched in response to the high number of child deaths. “It’s a generational effort; it took multiple generations to give us the infrastructure we have today,” he said.
Will any of this make the streets safer?
Will they help make transportation safer for cars and bikes? The city racked up 53 traffic deaths in 2025, the highest in a decade, and 32 bike/pedestrian and e-scooter deaths. This year has seen 36 traffic deaths through mid-September. The city is also trying other tools; speed cameras are being installed, and tickets will go out this fall.
It’s not yet any safer to ride through Long Beach than it was 10 years ago, “but it’s not safer to do anything in Long Beach,” said Kurt Canfield, a cyclist and organizer for Car Lite Long Beach, a bike advocacy organization. He often rides the Broadway bike path, which he considers a success despite debris in the lane and other issues.
“They wanna bike, they wanna walk, people are driving 300 horsepower crossovers. We’re in conflict for the same space,” he said. “But this infrastructure gives us the ability to be safer.”
Brandon Killman
is a social media producer who turns the newsroom's reporting into stories that live in your hand.
Published September 20, 2026 5:00 AM
Hunter Noack takes in the view at Summer Lake, Oregon, ahead of an In a Landscape performance.
(
Stelth Ulvang
)
Topline:
Pianist Hunter Noack brings his grand piano to Griffith Park for two shows in September, part of a nationwide series organized in partnership with the nonprofit Trust for Public Land.
Why it matters: The Sept. 26 and 27 performances mark the first time the "In a Landscape" series has played Los Angeles in its 11-year run.
Why now: The shows nod to Trust for Public Land's work in the Griffith Park hills. The nonprofit helped raise the funds that kept Cahuenga Peak and the ridgeline around the Hollywood sign from being developed.
A grand piano, hauled in on a Ford F-350, will make its way next weekend to Griffith Park.
Then, right below the Hollywood sign, the flatbed will unfold into a stage for a recital by pianist Hunter Noack, who has played everywhere from Yosemite Valley to Joshua Tree National Park.
For a decade, Noack has hauled his Steinway — the same model used at Carnegie Hall — through rough terrain to perform in unusual places: 370 concerts and counting.
The piano has survived fire, wind and 112-degree heat
"We've had the piano lid be ripped off by the wind. We've had the piano trailer tires catch fire on Highway 1. We've almost driven off the side of Mount Bachelor. We've played in 112-degree heat and negative 2 degrees in the winter," Noack said. And the piano has come out unscathed, including after it was towed down the washboard gravel along Schweitzer Mountain in Idaho — the only thing that happened was that it went out of tune.
How the show actually works
Among the pieces on the program at Griffith Park is "Nature Boy," the song Eden Ahbez wrote while living outdoors under the first L of the Hollywood sign. The song was later made famous by Nat King Cole.
Audiences at the Griffith Park show will be provided with wireless headphones for concert-hall quality sound, he said. "Some people just set up their picnic chairs or blankets right near the stage. Other people lay down," Noack said. "When there's so much else that's happening visually ... the music kind of automatically becomes a soundtrack, and we all get to experience that together."
The philosophy behind the series' name
The series is named after "In a Landscape," a piece by John Cage, who believed any sound could be music — even "somebody crinkling on a bag of chips," Noack said.
During his first show in 2016 at the Columbia River Gorge, Noack was midway through a soft Schumann piece about a delicate flower when 40 Harley-Davidsons on a memorial ride rolled up and circled the piano.
Rather than pack it in, he answered with Frederic Rzewski's "Winnsboro Cotton Mill Blues," a piece built to mimic the aggressive clatter of a cotton mill. "It was a conversation between the piano and these roaring Harleys," he said.
In a Landscape: Classical Music in the Wild
Where: Griffith Park, 3200 Canyon Dr., Los Angeles When: 3 to 4:30 p.m., Saturday, Sept. 26 and Sunday, Sept. 27 Tickets: Both shows are sold out, but you can join the waitlist.
The show is held in partnership with the Trust for Public Land, a nonprofit that helps preserve Cahuenga Peak and the ridgeline around the Hollywood sign for the public.