George Will: Build more roads!

Columnist George F. Will isn't buying the argument that more mass transit will ease America's traffic congestion crisis. Not surprisingly, Will believes a lot more good old fashion concrete is needed -- along with some new technology. He talks about more toll roads, congestion pricing and private-sector roads:

The usual scolds -- environmentalists, urban "planners," enthusiasts for public transit (less than 5 percent of the workforce uses it) -- argue that more highways encourage more driving ("induced demand") and hence are self-defeating. But as Ted Balaker and Sam Staley respond in their new book on congestion, " The Road More Traveled," among the 10 largest metropolitan areas, Los Angeles has the least pavement per person; Dallas has twice as much per person and half as much congestion. Furthermore, when new schools are built because old ones have become congested and then the new ones fill up with children from families attracted by new schools, who argues that building the new ones was a mistake?

What do you think? Is George Will right? Totally wrong? Hit COMMENT and tell us what you think!

Comments

[Henry H]

Orange county expanded their freeways and they're filling up quickly.its like giving a crack head a bigger straw. We dont need anymore freeways. Gas prices will eventually ease congestion on these monoliths. What we need is to expand transit to have a balance between both systems. This will help ease congestion. People will need options when driving starts to cost 9 bucks a gallon in the future.

[Dan W.]

Where are we supposed to put all these roads George Will wants for Los Angeles? The car culture has already reached its economic and environmental limit.

Like many conservatives who are against public transit, what people like Will really fear is that they might actually have to sit next to someone of a different race, class, culture, sexual orientation, or ideology and find out that they are just like themselves.

[Martin Engel]

It's the highways vs. the rail tracks. One's good, the other's bad. You're an idiot. No, you're an idiot.

Polarizing discussions such as this sell newspapers and release testosterone among bloggers. Simple minded. Black and white. And worthless. We live in a multi-modal world. California will need more rail and more highways, and more runways. It will need more and better bus service, including Bus Rapid Transit. Urban and regional mass transit demands far greater support because that is where the congestion and the pollution are the worst. The state's infrastructure has been severely neglected and our rail systems, bridges and tunnels need repair and improvement, and yes, our highways need more lanes. It is not either-or.

On the other hand, what we certainly don't need is pork-barrel politics and boondoggles in whatever form they may take, rail, concrete or asphalt.

[American Tamil Guy]

Is Mr.Will a lobbyist for the Construction industry?

[Richard]

George Will will never stop seeing the world through his conservative ideological prism.
His attitude reflects the blindness of the American Conservative to how much the ground has shifted on so many things. (the American Liberal as well.)

The modern American transportation system, based on the notions of individual freedom of movement in ones’ own privately owned vehicle that Mr. Will should dearly espouse given his political point of view is based on two economic premises that have changed drastically since the days of John D Rockefeller and Henry Ford. The petroleum industry and the automobile industry were overwhelmingly American industries during most of the Twentieth century. America produced all its own petroleum and manufactured all its own automobiles back in the days all the highways were being built, and L.A. was invented. Neither industry is particularly American any more. The very stability of American society depends on foreigners and foreign nations to produce the petroleum we use and vehicles we drive. Those are plain undeniable facts. The United States was the economic and industrial colossus of the world fifty years ago. The attitude them was that no problem was beyond America’s ability to solve. The United States is the world’s biggest debtor nation now. How did this happen?

Interesting that Mr. Will’s column appears the same day Halliburton announces it’s corporate move to Dubai. Perhaps Vice-president Cheney will be retiring to Palm Jumeirah.

[Tom A.]

Mr. Cleary hit the nail on the head: We don't have room for more roads. What we do have are seldom used or abandoned rail rights of way that could make it relatively easy to add light rail lines leading to San Pedro, Santa Ana, Redlands, Huntington Beach, Whittier and yes, even LAX, as well as Metrolink lines to Long Beach Airport and Hemet. I've drawn up my doable "dream system" on Google Earth, and once I have the time to figure out how to upload it, I'll be happy to share.

[Augustus Vogel]

Perhaps Mr. Will has a solution for global warming too? Oh wait, he doesn't believe in it. Large public transit ridership isn't purely about convenience. 1/3 of the U.S.'s 25% contribution to the world's carbon emissions comes from transportation. If the U.S. decides that ocean acidification, ecosystem shift and changing sea levels aren't in its best ECONOMIC interest, then transportation will have to change.

[G. M.]

Will is wrong because he is a simpleton. Adding schools is not the same as adding roads. He is the perfect example of someone who doesn't have to live next to a 10 lane freeway.

City planning is THE most important way to deal with traffic. If people lived closer to work - meaning zoning practices incouraged multi-use developement better, then people could easily drive less and then all of Will's highways would be used for the few times they are needed - non-commuting trips. That would be freedom.

[Michael]

Why do people keep on talking about HOV lanes? Don't they realize that the modern workworld isn't just 9 to 5? People have to stay late at work, sometime they need to get in early. It was a bad idea and still is a bad idea. Rip the HOV lanes out and replace them with trains. At least if I have to stay late I could take the next train. Also, many people work in the film industry here in Los Angeles and few people work the same hours. It just isn't viable, and is a huge waste of money. That money being spent on the 405 should be spent instead on a sepulveda pass subway to the airport.

[TrafficBulldog.org]

There certainly is nothing free about the freeways.

Roger Snoble has said "At 1.3 riders per car, there would be no more traffic congestion".

Sure we could build more roads.... but it is time to look at carpooling again.

Why did the federal government stop supporting carpooling in 1980? Sure they build HOV lanes, but why were incentives to carpool removed in 1980?

Why does the LA MTA get away with funding carpooling services at less than 0.0092% of its $4 Billion annual budget? Mr Snoble has not been quoted that the buses or rail will eliminate traffic congestion.

Why are we going to spend close to $950 million expanding the 405 for 10 miles worth of 1 carpool lane? Why spend the money when the MTA underfunds actual carpooling.

http://trafficbulldog.org is a Commuter Advocacy group working to get our freeways moving again.

Please join the conversation.

[Patrick Cleary]

I live in Holllywood. I used to work downtown. I drove for about two months and then switched to the subway. I found positive benefits in the bit of exercise I got from walking to the subway, the time I was able to use to read or take care of odds and ends, the gas money saved (as well as ware and tear to my vehicle), and the reduction of stress that happens when you don't have to face the cut-throat world of LA drivers. Now I work in Beverly Hills and I'm a prisoner to my car. The 720 bus line isn't really viable because it too is stuck in the traffic on Wilshire Blvd. One problem with Wills' argument is that it doesn't take into account the lack of space in Los Angeles for more freeways. The good thing about going underground is that you don't need to reshape the geography, and/or the businesses and residents that reside near freeways.

[Patrick Cleary]

I live in Holllywood. I used to work downtown. I drove for about two months and then switched to the subway. I found positive benefits in the bit of exercise I got from walking to the subway, the time I was able to use to read or take care of odds and ends, the gas money saved (as well as ware and tear to my vehicle), and the reduction of stress that happens when you don't have to face the cut-throat world of LA drivers. Now I work in Beverly Hills and I'm a prisoner to my car. The 720 bus line isn't really viable because it too is stuck in the traffic on Wilshire Blvd. One problem with Wills' argument is that it doesn't take into account the lack of space in Los Angeles for more freeways. The good thing about going underground is that you don't need to reshape the geography, and/or the businesses and residents that reside near freeways.

[david p.]

of course he's wrong. increasing the size of the roads enables greater volume. its a temporary fix, like a bandaid with no adhesive properties.

while it is true that a large percentage of americans do not use public transportation, what is true is that it has a greater capacity to alleviate congestion than more pavement

any hunches what would happen in nyc, boston and washington dc if mass transit were no longer available?

for la-specific solutions, mass transit needs to be seen as a real alternative to commuting and daily travel. i think the real demon is la's fetish with the automobile and the feigned sense of "independence" car driving gives. there's nothing free about being frozen in gridlock.

the people skimming under you at 50 mph on the red line have other ideas as to what independence means...