Smart growth debate

There's been a thoughtful dust-up on The Times' opinion page the last few days about traffic, "smart growth" and the future of development in L.A. It's between author Robert Bruegmann and activist Gloria Ohland. Bruegmann today says:

Rather than put as our goal a reduction in vehicle miles traveled, we should instead be looking first of all to maintain or increase mobility for all citizens. This will, of course, involve major changes to our current transportation system that we have clearly outgrown. Public transport can and should play an important role in this, but given the low densities of our cities, the scattered locations of homes, jobs and other activities and the enormous gains in efficiency provided by private transportation, it is highly unlikely that traditional buses or trains will supplant private transportation in any significant way.

Comments

[Greg Kay]

Peter McFerrin,

My dad says....

(and father knows best)

that while growing up in Los Angeles in the 30's, it was common for him and others in the neighborhood to take a Red Car, or a jitney (gypsy cabs), or get a ride from the neighbors or ride a bike downtown.

Maybe the auto and the streetcar didn't live in perfect harmony, but the point is: at one time there were simultaneous options: the Red Cars and Yellow Cars were hardly beneath the dignity of the car-owning white middle class.

Another very popular line until the 50's was from Glendale to downtown. Glendale has never been a slum.

[yours truly, johnny dollar]

This is the inverse of "I was sad because I had no shoes until..."
My wife and I headed out on our bicycles at 0640 today from the
Culver Studios neighborhood in what would be a ride to breakfast
at Polly's on the Pier in Redondo Beach then on southward to Malaga Cove;
a 42-mile morning by the time we got our steeds back to the barn. Riding through Manhattan Beach we noticed, for the first time, city placed signs
on the bicycle path "Bike Path, no pedestrians/skateboarders." Anything
for safety. On the return trip, we stopped on the Marina del Rey/Playa del Rey bridge which goes over Ballona Creek to enjoy the view of a beautiful Southern California morning; and take in some water and energy (carrots). Also, on the bridge was "this guy" on his very used Trek 830 mountain bike with everything (including maybe the kitchen sink) fastened to it. The cat that I am, curiosity got the best of me; so I went over to him to see what his story was. As he began his "once upon a time," my 42-mile work-out paled. More than five months ago, he had left British Columbia on his fully loaded down Trek 830 crossing into the good ole USA; southward he rode until he crossed into Mexico at Yuma. Today, he was working his way back northward where in a few weeks he will cross back into British Columbia. Mind you, he said he averages 8 miles an hour (hour after hour). He said it was his life=style; that he once owned three bicycle shoppes and made good money on the internet. But, he traded it all in for zero body fat, zero ulcers and a heart rate of 91/57 with a pulse of 66...and a grin from ear to shining ear. Yes, there is another world out there; another world outside the automobile. I'm still trying to find my piece of that outside world 42-miles at a time. Ride on my 8-mile an hour friend...you may be in Zuma Beach, by now.

[Pete McFerrin]

Greg Kay, the automobile and the Red/Yellow Cars never lived side-by-side in harmony. Automobile congestion slowed down streetcars, which caused losses in ridership, which caused increases in car usage, which led to even more congestion, etc. Where streetcars had exclusive right-of-way, cities constantly lobbied the California Public Utilities Commission to force the streetcar companies to switch their rights-of-way to street trackage in order to accommodate more private automobiles.

Moreover, there was an active anti-transit movement in the region. The Los Angeles Railway (Yellow Car) was owned wholly by the hated "traction magnate" Samuel Huntington and his heirs, while Pacific Electric Railway (Red Car) was a wholly-owned subsidiary of the even more detested Southern Pacific Railroad. Race also played a big factor; the LAT called streetcars "slums on wheels." The Yellow Cars were especially hated because the LARy's busiest routes served neighborhoods with large concentrations of blacks (Central Avenue), Mexicans (East 1st), Japanese (East 1st), and "ethnic" Caucasians (Pico/East 1st, 3rd, 6th, Washington).

[yours truly, johnny dollar]

People will not leave their automobiles; thus, planners should focus on making it so financially impractical for motorists to live in Agoura Hills and work in
Belmont Shore. Thus (part 2), motorists will stay in their automobiles but, they now will have bought that new home in San Pedro for their daily commute to
Belmont Shore. And that guy who lives in Marina del Rey and commutes round trip daily to Ventura (which for so long was me) will buy that guy's home in Agoura Hills. Problem reduced (on budget).

[Freddy]

Road vs. rail? Mall vs. Main Street? Let the market place find the right balance according to individual preferences and economic viability. However, the present urban landscape is not strictly the product of free markets. Transportation and land development are two of the most heavily taxed, subsidized and regulated sectors of the economy. The market interference cuts both ways but the net effect is probably a bias towards suburbia.

[Greg Kay]

There was a Los Angeles before the reign of the automobile. And yes, the sprawl we know today was not started by freeways, but rather by the interurban streetcar. But I would like to propose that it was a kinder, more livable sprawl. A sprawl that encouraged some walking, too. The Los Angeles of the pre-automotive age, the area roughly from Western to Eastern street contains hope for me. So do the compact downtowns of Canoga Park, Torrance, San Pedro, Culver City, Long Beach, Santa Monica... at one time all stitched together by the Red Cars interurban streetcar system. And then came the auto. And the two lived side by side for awhile - and as Gloria posits: choice was good.

And then developed the in-between Los Angeles - truly the product of the automotive age: long boulevards, big blocks, big lots, token sidewalk strips, easy access front parking lots - all for the convenience of the motorist, and the- discomfort of pedestrians and cyclists. Palms, Huntington Beach, Westchester, North Hollywood, Mid-City , Brentwood. I see those areas as lacking dimension, and therefore, a solid future.

To those Angelenos whose pattern of existence depends upon the outmoded paradigm of commuting 20-50 miles a day to work by private automobile: what future do you see?

[yours truly, johnny dollar]

"Riding the MTA widens my entertainment possibilities?" I've found little entertainment widening on my MTA journeys unless listening to half-empty
liquor bottles rolling around on the floor... while sitting between two people
who would not recognize an Ivory soap-bar... while I can't help but hearing two screaming babies being held by women who are either deaf or numbed by their daily life. And did I mention the half dozen "kids" with their pants down to their knees listening to a blaring ghetto-blaster...get some earphones. If this is Los Angeles' future, I'll stick with my bicycle and the "widening entertainment possibilities" from the outside of an MTA bus. Yes, I might find myself "thrown under the bus;" but, it's a more fulfilling widened entertainment experience.
Take me back to Tulsa; I'm too young to marry.
(Bob Wills and the Texas Playboys)

[Peter McFerrin]

Ah yes, the old cult of "mobility," in which a society's degree of development is viewed solely as a linear function of the amount of land an individual can consume within an hour's time. Having grown up in low-density exurban Chicago, having to be driven 10-20 minutes to get to anything other than an elementary school, I have never understood this mentality.

Message to Prof. Bruegmann: it's not 1955 anymore. Accessibility, not mobility, is what matters.

[Shaun]

I'm tired of the same excuses against transit that Bruegmann rehashes out; mainly the low density and decentraliazation argument. LOS ANGELES IS THE DENSET METROPOLITAN REGION IN THIS COUNTRY! It is desner than the NY Metro area OVERALL and denser than the Bay Area. The city of LA has areas where densities reach over 100,000 people per square miles. LA is hardly a low density city; if you want to see low density go to Houston, Phoenix, Dallas, ect...

The city may not be a high density city overall b/c it includes the Valley communities and SM Mountains, but it's definately a medium density city and denser than most major american cities. And the metropolitan area is the densest out of all of them. LA from downtown to Santa Monica is very dense. Considering the level of congestion all over this city trains will provide a very attractive alternative to driving IF it is done right and properly invested in. I;m sure many Westside residents and workers would rather take a subway to work rather than battle the SM Freeway or one of the many clogged surface streets. BART is a great example of how crippling congestion will take cars off the road and put them on a train. Anyone who doesn't buy that go look at BART parking structures, not lots, at 8am in the East Bay and notice how many are completely full. Or ask commuters about their 3 hour commute into SF went BART went on stike a decade ago.

LA passed a critical point years ago when it just became TOO BIG AND TOO DENSE for just freeways as it's primary mode of transportation for anyone with the means to afford a car. LA is spread out but it's spread out with medium to high density development where transit can work. Most people work along specific corridors or employment clusters too. LA WILL NEVER SOLVE CONGESTION. No city in the world has ever built there way out of congestion with more freeways and we will not be the first. It didn't work in the past and it will not work in the future. When will people realize the mistakes we have made with planning and development and try something different rather than the same old crap that got us in this situation in the first place?

[austin]

This conclusion is easily arrived at and reflects a mentality that we simply must overcome. We only have so many alternatives, The growth our already congested region is facing neccesitates a modern, sophisticated rail system that rapidly connects Downtown, Santa Monica, Santa Clarita, Pomona, Irvine, and Thousand Oaks. To many, this is just a 25th century pipe dream. To those, instead of thinking of the future, I would suggest looking at the past. Paris, London, and New York would be unlivable without there rail systems, and they have been in place at least a hundred years. L.A. is a world class city on a par with those cities, and as our modern Southern California changes and becomes more dense, we need to seriously alter our free wheeling California culture and use our ample ingenuity to create a rail system that we deserve. Critics of rail love to point to the expense of building and maintaining such a system. Please, consult the Auto Club on the data concerning just how much money Angelenos spend on gas annually, and just during the a.m. and p.m. rush hour Monday through Friday. It boggles the mind. If done right, our rail system would employ thousands, be used by millions, and pay for itself in time. We have every incentive to build our rail system, not to mention the environmental benefit of less carbon monoxide in the air and a step toward reduced dependence on Middle East oil. Our region is changing and we must adapt to those changes. Anyone suggesting building more freeways and widening existing ones are solutions is whistling in the dark.

[tom]

This conclusion is easily arrived at and reflects a mentality that we simply must overcome. We only have so many alternatives, The growth our already congested region is facing neccesitates a modern, sophisticated rail system that rapidly connects Downtown, Santa Monica, Santa Clarita, Pomona, Irvine, and Thousand Oaks. To many, this is just a 25th century pipe dream. To those, instead of thinking of the future, I would suggest looking at the past. Paris, London, and New York would be unlivable without there rail systems, and they have been in place at least a hundred years. L.A. is a world class city on a par with those cities, and as our modern Southern California changes and becomes more dense, we need to seriously alter our free wheeling California culture and use our ample ingenuity to create a rail system that we deserve. Critics of rail love to point to the expense of building and maintaining such a system. Please, consult the Auto Club on the data concerning just how much money Angelenos spend on gas annually, and just during the a.m. and p.m. rush hour Monday through Friday. It boggles the mind. If done right, our rail system would employ thousands, be used by millions, and pay for itself in time. We have every incentive to build our rail system, not to mention the environmental benefit of less carbon monoxide in the air and a step toward reduced dependence on Middle East oil. Our region is changing and we must adapt to those changes. Anyone suggesting building more freeways and widening existing ones are solutions is whistling in the dark.

[steve housewright]

This summer, I'm celebrating being 10 years car-free in Los Angeles and still happy about it. I adopted the "smart-growth" lifestyle prior to hearing the term used. It really is a lifestyle change, not unlike a lifestyle change in diet or addiction and has its own sets of psychological problems that lead the blogger to this conclusion.

One thing that has been helpful for me in this lifestyle choice is the realization that everything I need is generally around me within a two mile radius of home - including employment. Public transportation simply widens my choices for entertainment, shopping, and special events.

[tom]

This conclusion is easily arrived at and reflects a mentality that we simply must overcome. We only have so many alternatives, The growth our already congested region is facing neccesitates a modern, sophisticated rail system that rapidly connects Downtown, Santa Monica, Santa Clarita, Pomona, Irvine, and Thousand Oaks. To many, this is just a 25th century pipe dream. To those, instead of thinking of the future, I would suggest looking at the past. Paris, London, and New York would be unlivable without there rail systems, and they have been in place at least a hundred years. L.A. is a world class city on a par with those cities, and as our modern Southern California changes and becomes more dense, we need to seriously alter our free wheeling California culture and use our ample ingenuity to create a rail system that we deserve. Critics of rail love to point to the expense of building and maintaining such a system. Please, consult the Auto Club on the data concerning just how much money Angelenos spend on gas annually, and just during the a.m. and p.m. rush hour Monday through Friday. It boggles the mind. If done right, our rail system would employ thousands, be used by millions, and pay for itself in time. We have every incentive to build our rail system, not to mention the environmental benefit of less carbon monoxide in the air and a step toward reduced dependence on Middle East oil. Our region is changing and we must adapt to those changes. Anyone suggesting building more freeways and widening existing ones are solutions is whistling in the dark.