L.A.'s freeway shortage

The debate about the future of L.A. traffic continues today between the Transit Coalition's Bart Reed and the Reason Foundation's Ted Balaker. Reed says L.A. can improve matters with better planning, creating residential development next to shops and mass transit lines. But Balaker continues to insist that more roads are the answer and make this counterintuitive point:

Los Angeles proves the futility of road building. It's home to seemingly endless freeways and the nation's worst traffic congestion. But look closer: L.A. has lots of roads, but it also has lots of people. In fact, among the top 50 urbanized areas, LA is second to last in pavement per person and dead last in freeway miles per capita.

Do we have a shortage of freeways in Southern California? Hit the comment button and join the debate.

Comments

[Davidah]

I looked at those numbers, and we're not last in estimated freeway LANE miles per person.
Which is all we'd be adding if we stack or expand freeways.

Behind us in estimated freeway LANE miles per person are New York-Newark, Chicago, Miami, Philadelphia, Phoenix, Sacramento, Portland, Las Vegas, New Orleans, and Concord, CA.

If we want more freeway miles, we'd have to build thin new ones, to neighborhoods. Plowing through and buypassing what? Good luck.

[Benjamin Brown]

There are Spiritual parallels to the L.A. immigration & transit problems elsewhere around the world.

"Originally the Israeli Settler Colony was designed along the lines of a left-wing Zionist utopia but has hardened into a National Socialist Sparta"- from anti-war.com

[Fred Nolans]

I've been saying this for years - Angelenos obviously do not want more public transpo, which is ridiculously expensive and impractical for most commuters.

Double-decking major freeways with express lanes would be a fraction of the cost and much more effective (e.g, 101, 405).

[Whitman Lam]

As a proud resident of Los Angeles, I am all for a cleaner and greener city for my family to live in.

I am shocked, how anyone can support the proliferation of pollution, by feeding the gridlock traffic. The more lanes we add (Toll Road or otherwise) , the more gridlock and pollution we will suffer down the road.
We will end up creating more bottlenecks.

If we are to fully understand the significance of traffic congestion in our daily lives, we must keep in mind, it is not a monolithic form, with one cause, or one solution.

Traffic is a collection of many factors, which likewise needs a multi dimensional approach. Traffic is tied to population growth, this has long been the reasoning behind expanding our roadways by some ratio to keep up with growth.

The problem with that is, that while our local population has made double digit gains, traffic congestion has literally gone up exponentially faster than population. The reasons for this:

1. Sprawl: Large tract development with bad planning.
Population and demographics have rapidly shifted towards the outer fringes of
urban centers. The suburbs have given way to ex-urbs and then beyond.
Instead of having controlled growth, most new housing and developments
spread like ripples in a pond (No, not even close ) like fallout from an atomic blast.

This type of development makes coordinated mass transit much less effective,
because destinations for work, shopping, school, etc. are widely dispersed.
Commuters are now frequently driving longer distances, which leads to more cars
on the road at any given time. This is the reason why public transit use has
declined as a fraction of trips, even though, by numbers, more people are using
mass transportation than at any time in our history.

2. International Trade: Just as the need for affordable housing has created sprawl, the need
for affordable consumer goods has led to the congestion crisis at our
ports. Foreign imports have gone up exponentially because of the
Global economy and the demand for cheap labor and materials.

This trade has put tens of thousands of trucks on our freeways. Long ,
Heavy trucks are posing serious problems and creating bottlenecks on
our onramps and offramps. These heavy loads constantly wreak havoc
on our pavements and cost of millions of dollars just to maintain the
integrity of the highways we have.

3. Easy Auto Loan Practices: Cars are much more affordable to a wider range of consumers
thanks to easy credit lending. People who would not be able to
afford automobiles in the past can now own several cars. This has
led to a parking nightmare along our city streets, as parking space
has all but disappeared, our streets are becoming narrower from
curb to curb. Parked cars are choking our major arterial streets.

Widening our roads and freeways is not always the best solution to ease traffic. In order to solve the problem, we must stop feeding it with a steady diet of concrete and asphalt.
The expansion of roadways and parking lots will only lead to more scattered sprawl development and more vehicles on the road.

Eventually those newly widened roads will also be suffocated with an instantaneous increase in traffic. We cannot pave over the problem, we must implement, alternative solutions:

1. Smarter Growth: A more efficient use of land resources with long term planning.

This means growing in a centralized plan around a Downtown, with high
density housing, employment, and shopping. This reduces the need for long
commutes, and provides an alternative commute by Rail Transit or other
Public Transit.

2. Improved Freight Rail: The movement of goods can be facilitated by a network of efficient
cargo trains carrying containers from the Ports of Los Angeles and
Long Beach, to distribution centers farther Inland. Trains are much
more fuel efficient than diesel trucks, and rails can carry more raw
tonnage of cargo than our crumbling highways.

3. Expand our Commuter Rail System:

Trains and subways provide a useful alternative to driving. They do not
consume high priced gasoline. And with enough investment can
transport millions of people, everyday, from all walks of life, in an
efficient system.

Trains do not add to the problem of traffic. Rail lines are separate from
roads, so while someone's car is stuck in traffic at 5 mph, someone else
on a train can zoom by at 70 mph.

Having a good rail transit system will make Smart Growth and high
density housing more viable as a community.

Rail transit has become a primary means of travel in cities around the
globe, like in Europe and Japan, where people enjoy a high quality life
without the stress and pollution that we suffer.

Rail Transit gives our communities who are sick and tired of the traffic, a real alternative choice, a way to shed the straightjacket gridlock, to break out of the gasoline addiction.

[Kristine]

I say let's keep bringing in the poverty of Mexico to LA illegally...why not? Our freeways are already populated and our air is beginning to be like Mexico...drab and polluted. The reason our freeways are so crowded is because of all the illegals here. Don't you people see what's happening everywhere around you?

[Johnny]

I have a feeling Balaker would get along just fine with Benjamin "the Expo Line is only for 'Hispanics'" Cate.

But seriously folks. Balaker's arguments completely miss the the point of rail transit. First off, he is a member of the "free market uber alles" Reason foundation and thus is likely to exhibit a knee-jerk reaction against anything with the word "public" in it (aside from publicly traded stock). Also, as camillo pointed out in an earlier post, the Reason foundation rests snugly in the pocket of Exxon-Mobil. Let's face it, an improved rail system would not exactly be in Exxon-Mobil's best interest. However, an improved bus system would still be reliant on products provided by Exxon-Mobil, which may be the reason Balaker wants an extended bus system instead of improved rail.

More importantly, his arguments against rail fail to address many of the key benefits to rail transit. It is true that rail will not magically shave away half of your commute time, as Balaker’s beloved HOT lanes claim to. But in a crowded urban area such as Los Angeles, an effective rail system would allow commuters to reach their destinations in the same amount of time as driving or less while simultaneously saving them money, reducing stress, reducing pollution, and allowing a greater range of activity during the commute. In addition, an effective rail system would also increase tourism and thus benefit local businesses.

Balaker seems locked into the mentality that the only factor in relieving congestion is reducing commute time. But imagine this: You have a commute which takes 1 hour by car. City planners have proposed two options for reducing traffic in your area. The first is improving the freeway which would reduce your commute by 10 minutes, but would reach capacity quickly and require further improvement at roughly the same cost. The second option is a rail line, which would not save you time but would allow you to read and access the internet during your commute. The rail would require more money up front, but would always take the same amount of time and capacity could easily be added by running more trains. Which would you choose?

Balaker’s great solution is “market priced” HOT lanes. And if you are someone like Balaker, these lanes would be perfect. But these lanes do not really solve anything. As congestion increases, the price of the lanes goes up, and the lanes become less and less of a viable option for the general public. Balaker is blissfully unaware that HOT lanes take freeway space away from carpoolers (you listening, TrafficBulldog?) who are actually making more efficient use of their cars and limited freeway space. But again, this may be due to his affiliation with Exxon-Mobil.

What we need is a new approach to commuting. It is never going to be easy, but is can be easier if we commit to building an effective rail system.

[movielocke]

I'm in support of adding carpool lanes to every freeway in LA.

or even a website that lets you find someone nearby to commute/carpool with anytime day or night.

Then when these lanes do absolutely nothing to relieve congestion and in fact only worsen it, we can tear them out and put rail lines where they used to be.

I figure twenty years for the carpool lane construction and about 50 billion in expenses

then another 25 years (being generous here) for the rail line construction and about 120 billion in expenses.

[camilo]

I'm tired of reading what Ted Balaker has to say. Bart Reed is advocating for the interest of all the people in LA (everyone!!) who suffers from our nightmare-ish traffic conditions. On the other hand, Ted is just working in the interest of the oil companies. Check it out....

http://www.exxonsecrets.org/html/orgfactsheet.php?id=63

Great, just who we need to help solve our smog and traffic woes...Ted, go home!

[TrafficBulldog.org]

Has anyone else seen the new apartments that are going up at the end of the Gold Line off of Madre in Pasadena?

Turns out that you don't want to live or work within 500 meters of the freeways. The California Air Resources Board had a great presentation yesterday (3-22-07) regarding decreased lung capacity from vehicle exhaust versus distance from the freeways. I know that we are trying to build "smart" cities in terms of locating people next to transportation. But maybe a little more thought should be put into building housing or office space so close to the freeway. They sure seem to be within 100 meters. At that distance a child that grows up in those apartments will have 10% less lung capacity.

I have been travelling to Sacramento a lot lately. Global Warming and Air Quality issues.

You know what I have learned? The air in SoCal really sucks. Really. Did you know that the California Air Resources Board implementation plan to clean the air by 2014 is that we all just buy new cars. Is that realistic? I don't know about you, but I see a lot of old cars here in SoCal. The South Coast AQMD had some paper samples of 24 hour exposure in Long Beach. Paper goes in white and comes out black.

Don't you see how bad the air is? Can't we all just get along and support people forming carpools?

http://TrafficBulldog.org is a commuter advocacy group committed to finding a way to help people form carpools. Because only less cars on the road is really going to fix the air we breath.

[dan bednarski]

Adding more roads and freeways will only invite more cars which will continue the problems with traffic, in the vein of: "If you build it, they will come." Los Angeles should look to Berlin and London as examples. Both cities have extensive road systems, as well as expansive rail and other modes of public transit.

Will it be expensive? Yes, of course, but it will be worth every penny invested.

[Shaun]

LA is the densest metropolitan area in the US, which means there is only so much room available to build massive freeways. Other metro's have more pavement and freeways per capita b/c they are spread out more so than we, as hard as that is to believe. Once you reach a certain density then it becomes impractical to rely on one mode of transportation, the private automobile. LA is just TOO DENSE to have everyone drive. Balaker keeps treating commuters and Angeleno's as numbers and statistics rather than using some real world examples; I think many of us deserve a little more consideration than being some stupid number or statistic. Those numbers he keeps throwing out there and spinning do not tell the whole story and there are plenty of stats and numbers than counter what he claims. Do those stats show you the consequences of what a freeway does to an adjacent neighborhood? Has anyone ever tried living next to a freeway? I guarantee you Balaker lives no where near a freeway. Some of us prefer less pavement and don't want every single inch of the LA Basin to be a giant parking lot, although many can argue that it already is. He says LA is 2nd to last in pavement per capita, well look who is last, NEW YORK!! And look where they rank on traffic congestion; not even in the top 5. B/c they don't rely on one single mode to move people around and have SUBWAYS and TRAINS as alternative modes of transportation for commuters. LA is even denser than the NY Metro Area and we have mainly one mode to rely on. Does anyone else see the danger in relying on one mode to move people around? What happends when the Santa Monica Freeway collapses or any other freeway goes down in the next earthquake? After the 89 quake BART and ferries were the only means of getting into SF from the East Bay after the Bay Bridge went down. Balaker's arguments are so short sighted and he needs to take a history lesson and look what his current suggestions have resulted in the past when they were done. Some of us try to learn from past planning and development mistakes, Balaker keeps suggesting the same ones.

[Andy]

I don't know if Los Angeles truly lacks enough freeways where they exist, but there surely areas where freeways would be of great help.

As I am sure many people on the westside of the San Fernando Valley will dislike this idea, but maybe converting Topanga Canyon Blvd. into a freeway. I am not suggesting a massive overhaul of the area, that is probably one of the worse thing for a large community. I haven't been on the road for long time, but maybe even taking the road and making it a 4 lane freeway (2 lanes on each side). By replacing traffic lights with off ramps and back up with 65 mph speed limits may be a worthwhile consideration.

More so, another connection between Lancaster and Palmdale (via Santa Clarita) and San Fernando is extremely important. Whether it means a highway from the Antelople Valley or from the Santa Clarita valley, an alternative is important.

That said, mass transit (either buses or trains) might be the best solution to traffic in northern Los Angeles. Metrolink is great along with all the Light Rail, but more is needed. The negative image of mass transit needs to be lost and more options of transit need to be addressed.