See where you actually stand.

CONTEXT

The intersection of Nordhoff Street and De Soto Avenue in Los Angeles is a high-speed, multi-lane arterial that prioritizes vehicle throughput over all other modes. Designed decades ago to move cars quickly, the intersection features wide travel lanes, minimal pedestrian infrastructure, and no protected space for cyclists. This design is typical of mid-20th-century road engineering that assumed speed and efficiency were the primary goals. However, the tragic 166 bus crash at this intersection exposed the lethal consequences of that philosophy. The crash, which killed multiple passengers and injured dozens, was a direct result of a road environment that encouraged high speeds and offered no physical protection for vulnerable road users. The current design creates a dangerous mismatch between the posted speed limit and the actual speed the road encourages—drivers routinely travel at speeds closer to 70 mph, far exceeding the safe limit for an urban intersection. This is not an isolated incident; nationwide, similar road designs are responsible for a disproportionate share of traffic fatalities, particularly among pedestrians and cyclists. The city has a moral and practical obligation to redesign this intersection to prioritize safety over speed, using proven traffic-calming measures that have succeeded in other cities.

PROBLEM

The core problem is that the current road design at Nordhoff and De Soto actively encourages dangerous driving behavior. Wide, straight lanes signal to drivers that high speeds are acceptable, and the lack of physical barriers means there is no consequence for exceeding the limit until a crash occurs. This design philosophy has been linked to a 30-40% increase in severe injury crashes compared to narrower, traffic-calmed streets, according to data from the Federal Highway Administration. The cost of inaction is measured in lives lost, families shattered, and emergency response resources stretched thin. After the 166 bus crash, the city installed additional signage and painted crosswalks, but these measures are insufficient. Paint does not stop a speeding car; only physical design changes can force drivers to slow down. The problem is compounded by the fact that the intersection serves multiple modes—pedestrians, cyclists, transit users, and drivers—but the design only accommodates one: the private automobile. This imbalance creates a hostile environment for everyone else, discouraging walking, biking, and transit use, which in turn increases car dependency and traffic congestion. If the city does not act, it is effectively accepting that more crashes will occur, a position that is both ethically indefensible and legally risky.

PROPOSED SOLUTION

The proposed solution is a complete street redesign that narrows travel lanes, adds protected bike lanes with physical barriers, and installs median bump-outs to create a non-linear path through the intersection. Specifically, the plan reduces general travel lanes from four to two, converting the freed space into dedicated bus lanes, protected bike lanes, and wider sidewalks with pedestrian bump-outs. The median is extended to create a slight curve, forcing drivers to slow down to navigate the intersection safely. The speed limit is lowered to match the new design speed of 25-30 mph, enforced by the road geometry itself rather than relying solely on signage or enforcement. Rejected alternatives include simply adding more signage or painting crosswalks, which have proven ineffective at changing driver behavior. Another rejected alternative is a full roundabout, which would require significant land acquisition and may not be feasible given the existing built environment. The proposed design is inspired by successful “road diet” projects in cities like New York, San Francisco, and Portland, where similar changes reduced crashes by 20-40% without significantly increasing congestion. Implementation would require coordination between the Los Angeles Department of Transportation, the Bureau of Engineering, and community stakeholders. Funding could come from state and federal safety grants, as well as the city’s capital improvement budget. The process would involve public hearings, environmental review, and a pilot phase to test the design before permanent installation.

EXPECTED IMPACT

If implemented, the redesign is expected to reduce severe crashes at the intersection by 30-50%, based on outcomes from similar road diet projects in other cities. Pedestrian and cyclist safety will improve dramatically, as physical barriers eliminate the risk of vehicles encroaching into bike lanes or onto sidewalks. Emergency response times will improve because dedicated bus lanes can be used by police and ambulances, bypassing general traffic congestion. Public transit reliability will increase as buses are no longer stuck in the same traffic as cars, making the 166 bus route more predictable and attractive to riders. The broader community will benefit from a safer, more walkable environment that encourages active transportation and reduces car dependency. Local businesses may see increased foot traffic as the area becomes more pedestrian-friendly. The city will also reduce its liability risk; after the 166 bus crash, lawsuits and settlements likely cost taxpayers millions. By proactively redesigning the intersection, the city can prevent future tragedies and the associated legal and financial costs. The only potential negative impact is a slight increase in travel time for drivers, but studies show that on roads with similar redesigns, the delay is typically less than one minute per trip, a small price to pay for a dramatic reduction in crash risk.

DECISION LENS

PRECEDENTS

EXAMPLE: New York City — What: Implemented a road diet on 9th Avenue in Manhattan, reducing travel lanes and adding protected bike lanes and pedestrian islands. — Outcome: Crashes decreased by 35%, pedestrian injuries by 50%, and travel times for drivers increased by less than one minute. — Outcome: Crashes decreased by 35%, pedestrian injuries by 50%, and travel times for drivers increased by less than one minute. EXAMPLE: San Francisco — What: Converted a four-lane road to two lanes with a center turn lane and bike lanes on Valencia Street, using physical barriers and narrowed lanes. — Outcome: Total crashes dropped by 20%, bicycle ridership increased by 40%, and vehicle speeds decreased by 15%. — Outcome: Total crashes dropped by 20%, bicycle ridership increased by 40%, and vehicle speeds decreased by 15%. EXAMPLE: Portland, Oregon — What: Redesigned the intersection of NE 42nd Avenue and NE Sandy Boulevard with curb extensions, narrowed lanes, and a raised median. — Outcome: Crashes at the intersection fell by 40%, and pedestrian crossing times improved due to shorter crossing distances. — Outcome: Crashes at the intersection fell by 40%, and pedestrian crossing times improved due to shorter crossing distances.