Have a transportation-related article you think should be included in headlines? Drop me an email! And don’t forget, Metro is on Twitter, Facebook and Instagram. Pick your social media poison! 

Buildings slated for tear-down were rich part of Little Tokyo’s history (L.A. Times) 

Nice article about the brick buildings on 1st Street between Alameda and Central that Metro must demolish to build the Regional Connector’s new Little Tokyo station. One of the buildings dates to 1898 and the once well-known Atomic Cafe was on the site. Senor Fish, one of the current occupants, is moving to 7th and Mateo in downtown L.A. The article concludes with this nice quote:

“That’s the thing about L.A. It constantly tears itself down,” [Sean Carrillo, one of the Troy Cafe owners] said. “The building has been here a long time. It’s a great building. And it’s done its job.”

Can L.A.’s streets be great? Deputy Mayor Rick Cole opines (The Planning Report)

The answer is yes, says Cole, although the city doesn’t have big amounts of money to spend on making the city’s streets more pedestrian, transit and bike friendly. The more likely solution will involve the city putting some seed money into streets that lure private investment.

Muni route overhaul speeds up, with route changes ahead (S.F. Chronicle) 

San Francisco’s city buses and trains average eight miles per hour for a variety of reasons — frequent traffic signals, stop signs, traffic and operating on busy streets. The agency is in the midst of trying to create more bus lanes, increase train speeds and create different levels of service (express, rapid, frequent, etc.). But some residents complain that will lead to less service in their neighborhoods, thereby betraying the Muni’s mission to bring transit to every corner of the city.

Although the particulars may not mean much to readers here, the story hits on some themes that are universal to transit planners. Namely, what’s the best way to serve a big city?

Should cities reject bad transit until something better comes along? (Next City)

Provocative last graph:

Those promoting certain transit plans often argue that it’s either now or never: Best not to let the perfect be the enemy of the good. But Zurich has shown that holding out for better, more cost-effective projects that leave money for more expansive networks can sometimes be the best decision. Or, at least, not a totally irredeemable one. The key — whether in Zurich, New Jersey, Austin or elsewhere — is making sure that something better does indeed happen.

The post never really answers the question posed in the headline. But it offers a few interesting examples that suggest that perhaps it’s better to do something right than get it wrong and suffer through the consequences.

Biking by the numbers (San Francisco Bike Coalition) 

The cost of one mile of protected bikeway is $455,000, according to the Coalition — far less than one mile of roadway, bridge or subway. The idea is to counter criticism that new bike infrastructure costs too much. It’s sort of a no brainer that bike infrastructure is, in fact, relatively cheap when it comes to transportation spending. That said, the more troublesome criticism that bike advocates likely will have to deal with is the allegation that some bike infrastructure is not being used much compared to vehicle lanes and transit. My own three cents: if a bike lane is not being used much, I want to know why and what can be done to get people to use it.