405 widening: A test case

The battle over widening the 405 is not just a local issue in Brentwood and Sherman Oaks. The Times' Rong-Gong Lin II says it's become a measure of how Caltrans does as it embarks on major freeway widening projects around Southern California:

But the project has generated strong opposition from some residents — and created something of a test case as Caltrans embarks on new freeway-widening projects with the help of the bond measure. The state Transportation Commission decided to provide $2.7 billion for expanding and improving Southern California freeways over the next few years. Besides the 405 project, Caltrans plans to widen the 5 Freeway in the Valley and southeast Los Angeles County. Road widenings are also slated for sections of the 57 and 91 freeways in northern Orange County, parts of the 91 and 215 in Riverside County and portions of the 10 and 215 in San Bernardino County.
Caltrans has bought about 10 homes in the Norwalk area, where the agency plans to replace a freeway overpass and add four lanes along the 5 north of the Orange County line, hoping to end a major traffic bottleneck.

Comments

[Robert]

With respoect to Phil,we cannot build our way toward a solution of ever increasing traffic congestion on southern California freeways. The bandwidth analogy is quite absurd.We are not talking about zeros and ones streaming along in cyberspace; we are talking about freeways made of concrete that is ultimately poured over neighborhoods where people live. As commuters grow in numbers and seek refuge in suburbia,there will be little left of greater L.a that is desirable to live in.In fact,if we follow Phil's logic out to the edges a bit,we can easily envision an L.a basin with nothing BUT freeways.

[Greg Kay]

If the money has been irrevocably, irretrievably earmarked to be shot to hell, why not change the carpool rules for that freeway: 20 or more passengers, CNG powered only. Orange Line #2!

[David in Los Angeles]

We need both:The 405 needs to be widdened AND the subway/light rail system need to be increased 10 fold. The 405 is a parking lot ... and the Red Line, while nice, is about 1/10 of what a city the size and density (yes, density) of Los Angeles needs.

[David in Tarzana]

Tim I understand the concept of earmarking and the way funds are allocated to various entities in the public sector. I also understand what wasted money is!! And $900 million is a waste of money. Yes this money is earmarked. Yes it will be spent. Yes ONE carpool lane will be added to the Sepulveda Pass. And Yes the Sepulveda Pass will still be a congested, snarled, time-wasting mess when the project is finished.

[Dean]

Widening the 405 makes no sense at all. Traffic may flow better for a while. Then it's gridlock again. I hope the people in those neighborhoods will pool their resources($$) and file endless lawsuits to stop this. Better public transportation is the only answer.

[Carter]

And while we're adding lanes to the 405, why don't we also rearrange the deck chairs on the titanic? Gas isn't going to get any cheaper or more abundant in the long term so good public transportation is a logical and safe investment. The Orange San Fernando line has exceeded ridership expectations for 2010 already, why wouldn't one of the busiest corridors (the Sepulveda Pass) not see skyrocketing ridership too if a mass transit train were built?

[Solo Racer]

"We are creating faster and more dangerous freeways that will simply become choked with more traffic as our growing population takes to the road."

Mark, you're contradicting yourself. How does a freeway become "faster and more dangerous" if it's "choked with more traffic?"

[Tim]

People seem to have a really hard time understanding the concept of earmarking and the way funds are allocated to various entities in the public sector. The $900 million cannot be used to build a subway or for anything else other than the carpool lane extension on the 405; it has already been approved and allocated to Caltrans. Furthermore, the arguments about what is more important- transit or highway expansion are moot: both are needed, even if we are headed in the direction of promoting more transit. At the very least, there should be no bottlenecks, all freeways need to be brought up to standard widths with continuous facilities.

[Gabriella O]

I think that adding more lanes and creating more freeways is not the answer. What we need is a good subway system like that of Washington D.C. This would allow people to reduce their commute time and gas money. This would also help to elimiate the pollution caused by so many cars here in South California.

[Randall Unruh]

We need the lanes now, not only something else later. 900 million is a very good price. Think of six hundred thousand cars idling away an extra half gallon of gas everyday for the next five years and multiply by the price of gas. I am not grinding an axe, I live near the 405 but commute three blocks. I am simply talking logic and facts. Yes, too bad a relatively small number of people will have to move or see their neighborhoods changed. At least we will have a Westside where traffic is only terrible and not completely impossible. Some of those protesting should consider the day when they need an ambulance and it cannot get to them or get them to the hospital in time. Or, the firetruck, the police car, the taxi, the bus etc.

[John]

Road widening is not a vicious cycle, it's simply upgrading the infrastructure to accomodate the capacity, just like any other form of infrastructure.

Imagine if the the municipal government decided to force people to install outhouses, because they decided that expanding the sewer system to accomodate additional capacity was just "a vicious cycle."

Road infrastructure has not kept pace with the population growth of Los Angeles, and needs to be expanded.

[Phil]

People who parrot the balderdash that expanding road capacity is fruitless seem to forget that the additional bandwidth is needed precisely because of growth. When the interstate highway system was conceived, the US had fewer than 180 million people. Now we have 300 million headed for 400. The fact of the matter is that no amount of mass transit will replace private automotive transportation as the first order means of getting around for most people, so if we continue to attract population, we are past the point of needing additional road capacity in some areas.

Moreover, expanding capacity in highly-congested areas is precisely the right thing to do for mitigating pollution. If traffic is moving, internal combustion engines are operating closer to their peak efficiency. It's better for everyone. Will that capacity eventually prove to be insufficient? Sure, if we keep growing. When we stop growing, you can bet there will be a louder howling from folks who are panicked by foregone economic opportunity. Unless you're already sustainably wealthy and don't need a vibrant economy, you have a stake in growth.

Mass transit has its place in the mix, but it isn't panacea. Over the next 30 years, the automobile will gradually recede from being central to environmental crisis, as it has been for the last 30. Judicious expansion of road capacity and networks will be necessary, sensible and contributory to quality of life. There are a lot of ways to do it, and none of them are cheap. But neither are the alternatives. While mass transit is figured out for its alternatives, we can improve the traffic situation in a relative few years.

Eminent domain is always a controversial means for acquiring land needed for the public good. Compensation should be fair. But Caltrans is right in pointing out that the sacrifice of a small coterie of homeowners who will be compensated, is fair to deliver needed improvement to hundreds of thousands, if not a few million. These kinds of improvements ripple through the road network.

The bigger controversy should be the decision to allocate the extra lane to carpooling. It would be far better to eliminate the carpool designation and just add the lane for general use, and doing same to the existing carpool lane southbound. Or make them toll lanes, charging for expedited flow. As both the Bay area and New Jersey have found, carpool lanes have never reduced pollution (often have increased it) *and* they drive UP the percentage of solo drivers. Further, carpool lanes tend to disproportionately carry multiple members of the same household, plus there is the ridiculous exploitation of the 2 occupants rule by Moms ferrying one kid below driving age. Carpool lanes are counterproductive for the societal objectives as a whole and often exacerbate the problems they are wrongly credited with alleviating. But of course, our political leaders, bureaucrats, and a good chunk of the voters are too simplistic to understand this. To quote Albert Yee, Caltrans chief of highway operations in the Bay Area (San Jose Mercury News): "Carpool lanes make it much easier to get environmental clearance" for road projects. "If we want to add a general-purpose lane for all drivers, that's going to get thrown out."

Gee, you'd think someone in the political stack would be interested in doing some good for the 97% or so of the voting population on the road. But that, apparently, is too much to expect.

Phil

[investorguy]

Oh, please. LA will NEVER get public transportation right, so road widening is the only choice. Get over it.

[Tom A.]

$900 million for a carpool lane? Seriously?! At that price you aren't that far off the $1.37 billion for the Pasadena to Montclair extension of the Gold Line, and it would actually have a LASTING positive effect on traffic in the area, despite what those uber-lowball daily ridership estimates might claim.
Oh that's right, I forgot. To paraphrase Kanye West, L.A. politicians don't care about San Gabriel Valley people!

[David in Tarzana]

$900 million to add ONE carpool lane and reconfigure some off ramps. What a deal! I guess the $900 million for the ONE carpool lane will at least provide some constructions jobs and pad the bank accounts of the companies awards the bids to do the work, but it sure as hell isn't going to do anything to alleviate our transportation crisis. This is depressing....

[Amir K]

Dear CalTrans,

Well done, you've nailed it. I'm not sure if you understand simple economics because if you did, you wouldn't even consider expanding the 405. When you add lanes to a freeway, in effect the "cost" of driving goes down since in theory traffic flows better. Soon, as drivers demand more "road time", the equilibrium will be reached, which at that point it is no better in terms of traffic flow than before the expansion.

Also, if traffic is the main issue, why not explore the roots of traffic in a different way? It's not always necessary to increase the supply of something; sometimes the demand can be reduced. In this case, one has to ask, "where in the hell is everyone going on this freeway?!?" Actually, I'm not sure about that one.

One thought is to have a Sepulveda subway ALLLLLL the way to LAX, connecting at the Green Line. Another is to reduce the number of on ramps/relocate them. However, I'm surprised that one of the easiest things to do wasn't done, which was a COMPLETE smoothing of the surface. It's almost as bad as Wilshire!

[Mark Peterson]

Road widening is a vicious cycle. We are creating faster and more dangerous freeways that will simply become choked with more traffic as our growing population takes to the road. Congestion will only be "solved" by creating additional transportation options. It makes me sick to think about $900 million being dumped into a dead-end project when these funds could be channeled into a transportation system that might improve the quality of life in our city, not destroy it.