40% slower traffic coming?

Check out details of the Metropolitan Transportation Authority's master plan here.

Here are two interesting stats from KNBC:

— If the projects outlined in the plan are not implemented, average traffic speeds throughout the county would decrease by 40% by 2030, said Carol Inge, the MTA's chief planning officer.

— According to MTA statistics, there are more than 7 million vehicles on the road in the county today, and the county's population is expected to grow by 2.4 million by 2030.

The MTA is having a bunch of public meetings on the plan:

March 26: 6:30 p.m. Westside Cities, Plummer Park, 7377 Santa Monica Blvd., West Hollywood, CA 90046

March 27: 6:30 p.m. Central Los Angeles, Metro Headquarters, 1 Gateway Plaza, Board Room, Third Floor, Los Angeles, CA 90012

April 3: 6 p.m. South Bay Cities, Carson Community Center, Room 107, 801 E. Carson St., Carson, CA 90745

April 8: 6 p.m. San Gabriel Valley, Potrero Heights Elementary School, 8026 E. Hill Drive, Rosemead, CA 91770

April 10: 6 p.m. Gateway Cities, Progress Park Plaza West, 15500 Downey Ave., Paramount, CA 90723

April 22: 6:30 p.m. North Los Angeles County, Larry Chimbole Cultural Center, Lilac Room, First Floor, 38350 Sierra Highway, Palmdale, CA 93550

April 23: 6 p.m. San Fernando Valley, Marvin Braude Constituent Service Center, Room 1B, 6262 Van Nuys Blvd., Van Nuys, CA 91401

Comments

[Joshua Reyes]

Dan, thank you!!!

Much of the Media is oblivious to the impeding fact that Car-Oriented lifestyle here in Los Angeles is dying and coming to a close.

[Dan W]

"Make you nostalgic for Sam Yorty's LA?"
------------------

Well, I wish the Red Car tracks were still in place. It would make rebuilding the transit system easier and quicker.

However, whether I'm nostalgic or not is irrelevant.

The point is that a suburban, low-density, automobile-entitlement lifestyle is no longer guaranteeable in all parts of the city. Thus whether any particular person continues to use an automobile as their personally preferred transportation option, the "car culture" itself where everyone is expected to do the same is unravelling, and their professional and personal lives will change whether they use any transit themselves or not.

If someone lives is Woodland Hills, Rancho Cucamonga or Downey, they still live in a suburb. Someone that lives at Pico & Robertson or Burbank & Lankershim does NOT.

And no one who lives in or near Downtown, Century City, Hollywood, North Hollywood or Westwood is entitled to that Sam Yorty's L.A. suburban, low-density, automobile-based lifestyle anymore just because they might be feeling nostalgic themselves.

[Cathy]

No, let ME state the obvious: Want to see your future in CA, Bunky? You won't ever own a house unless you win the lottery, sell drugs, or become famous for no apparent reason. You will live in a tiny apartment in a rabbit warren in BFE and your commute to work will take 2 hours each way. If you are lucky, you will have a car like the Tata motors Nano or you will ride a bike and
dodge the tanks (suv's and Hummers of the rich, who will still be able to afford them, along with the biofuels that take the food out of your mouth) and the bullets and the potholes through the mean streets. There will be no public transportation, no police enforcing the traffic laws. Your sole satisfaction will be to shave a few seconds off your commute by running red lights and other unsafe traffic manuevers. Sooner or later, you will be in a collision, and if you survive good luck because all the emergency rooms will be closed and you don't have medical insurance anyway. You will get to work exhausted and not be very productive. Certainly not in any mood to learn Chinese, the language that the upper classes are speaking now since China called in our debt. You will see luxury apartments and private parks in the city and know that they will never be for you. California is being plucked, by the developers, the electrical companies, the oil companies, the mortgage companies, and our own federal goverment. California is for the rich
international jetset. There is a "class cleansing" or social darwinism going on here. There are too many people and some of them have to go and baby, it's you (and me). Make you nostalgic for Sam Yorty's LA?

[Dan W.]

"We should clearly see that the long-term costs of not building these projects will far outweigh the short-term costs of building them. Tempting as it may be to bury our heads in the sand and stint on paying for infrastructure, this penny-wise-pound-foolish approach will leave financial, quality of life and environmental disasters as our legacy to future Southern Californians. The admitedly onerous expense of building these systems now pales compared to the long-term costs of ducking our responsibilities."
-----------------

Thank you for stating this, Ism.

This may be the most important and relevant comment I've seen on BB.

Yes, the short-term costs of (re-) building mass transit may be expensive. Yes, it will cost several billion dollars.

The long-term costs of NOT building it are immeasurable, both economically in lost productivity and environmentally.

To put it in perspective, for the trillions of dollars we are flushing down the sewer in the utterly unnecessary Iraq War, we could have built several gold-plated subways to the sea.

Don't let the automobile-entitlement folks who cannot deal with the fact that that the car culture is unsustainable or the bus-only transit extremists scare you with fears about the short-term costs. Focus on the long-term costs of not providing the transit alternatives we need.

[Dan W.]

"The scary thing is that even if all the MTA programs are implemented, traffic speeds will still slow over 30% by 2030."

"What is said basically is that no matter what Metro does, average speeds will go down. It stated that if Metro's improvements are done, the average speeds will be 23 mph. Without said improvements, the average speeds will be 20 mph. Honestly, I know 3 miles adds up over the long term, but for most of us, it is not a big deal."

---------------------

Here is the real story which the L.A. Times and Bottleneck Blog is underreporting. The Bottlenecks will only get worse as millions more move to the city. Any temporary relief through road/freeway expansion is just that -- temporary.

The Los Angeles car culture as we have known it is unravelling -- lacking room for more sprawl and roads, and lacking cheap gasoline to make it affordable.

NBC/Universal knows this. This non-altruistic corporation is relocating from its automobile-based location TO the Red Line. They know where the future is headed.

The question on offer is NOT what is the best way to reduce congestion -- road building or transit building. Congestion will continue to get worse period. The ONLY question on offer is whether or not we have enough public transit alternatives to keep Los Angeles economically and environmentally sustainable.

The best days of the car culture are now part of Los Angeles' past. People and businesses will no longer be able to rely on they and everyone they know and want to know being willing to drive and/or park an automobile anytime, anyplace, anywhere in the city.

Our elected officials obviously don't want to tell Los Angelenos, many of whom feel entitled to a car culture lifestyle, that the party's over. But, I will vote for the first politician with the courage to tell the truth. Los Angeles is changing and a suburban-within-urban car culture lifestyle is no longer an entitlement in all parts of Southern California.

[Mikel]

Why doesn't the government consider offering rebates to motorcycle riders? If more people rode motorcycles several problems would be solved, some of which are traffic overcrowding, gas consumption, road repairs and parking. Of course not everyone would be able to take advantage of this opportunity considering families and such, however a recent poll showed that the average number of people in cars is 1.1. This would not completely solve the problem but would be a step in the right direction.

[LAKLO]

The scary thing is that even if all the MTA programs are implemented, traffic speeds will still slow over 30% by 2030.

Average speed in 2030 with plan: 23 mph
Average speed in 2030 without plan: 20 mph

Scary thought #2: These are FREEWAY morning rush hour speeds. According to the MTA report, the 2004 average was 34 mph.

[Susan]

I'm not sure that slower traffic is all that bad a prospect. Most people drive fast and crazy because of poor planning (leaving from home, e.g., later than they should) or just plain general disrespect and contempt for the law. Maybe slower traffic will reduce deaths and destruction on the highway and simultaneously create an increased appreciation for taking life a little slower . . . instead of being addicted to speed for speed's sake.

[H]

Not gonna happen. $5 a gallon gas will take care of that.

[Lost in Deutschland]

Did anyone actually read this?

What is said basically is that no matter what Metro does, average speeds will go down. It stated that if Metro's improvements are done, the average speeds will be 23 mph. Without said improvements, the average speeds will be 20 mph. Honestly, I know 3 miles adds up over the long term, but for most of us, it is not a big deal.

And all the actually important improvements, like the Wilshire subway line, are in the "unfunded" section.

For me, any discussion about transportation in Los Angeles has to start with creating a real subway system, not one that bizarrely stops at Western or uses slow-as-molasses light rail.

And this isn't a money thing. This is political and will-power. If Beijing and Shanghai and Mexico City and Madrid can build subways systems in a matter of years, why has it taken us a quarter of a century to build an embarrassment?

[Dan W.]

I’ve just looked at the draft plan and the City of West Hollywood and Santa Monica Blvd. isn’t mentioned anywhere. It’s quite ballsy for the MTA to then have its scoping meeting for the Westside at Plummer Park in West Hollywood on Santa Monica Blvd. In the early Westside Transit Corridor Extension Project, the City of West Hollywood was left out of the scoping meetings. I find it ironic that they’d choose to have their one Westside scoping session for the Draft Long Range Transportation Plan in the City of West Hollywood along Santa Monica Blvd. If the MTA is planning to pat Santa Monica Blvd. alignment supporters on the head, thank them for participating, and then send them on their merry way so they can get back to their original plan of one alignment, Wilshire Blvd. only, then I guess in some perverse way they get points for the willingness to do it in person, face to face. But, I expect there will be many people attending that event to demonstrate support for SMB not being left out.

Here is a letter I sent to the MTA after reviewing the draft plan. They are accepting comment for 45 days (well, 44 now):

------------------------

Dear MTA,
Thank you for releasing today the draft of MTA’s Long Range Transportation Plan for comment.

The greatest public transit priority the MTA is facing is completing the Purple Line out to Santa Monica via Century City and I congratulate and celebrate it’s inclusion in the draft plan.

Unfortunately, there are two major things missing from draft plan.

1) The City of West Hollywood and a potential heavy or light rail alignment on Santa Monica Blvd. isn’t mentioned anywhere (or even a rush hour bus-only lane). This is inconceivable to me after their was great support shown in the scoping meetings for a Santa Monica Blvd. alignment or two alignments on the westside (Santa Monica Blvd. and Wilshire Blvd.) Jody Litvak, of the MTA, even expressed in City Beat that the MTA was surprised at how much support was expressed for a Santa Monica Blvd. alignment. This alignment would provide a valuable alternative to getting to/from Hollywood and the Westside, and if Alternative #9 is chosen, from the Valley to the Westside.

2) Also missing is any mention of a line from LAX north/south to Metrolink or even Sylmar in the Valley. Not everyone travels to/from downtown and the countless people who snake through passes/canyons each day desperately need alternatives. Alternative #9 in the Westside Transit Cooridor extension project would offer an alternative for travel from the East Valley to the Westside, and a Sepulveda based extension of the Green Line from LAX to Metrolink would offer a viable alternative for travel from the West Valley and the Westside.

Thank you for taking feedback. I will be encouraging everyone I know, especially transit riders to have a look and also give their feedback too.

Best regards,
------------------

I realize that the Alternatives Analysis is still underway for the Westside Transit Corridor Extension study, but as the map shows a Wilshire Blvd. alignment ONLY, it’s not a mystery where they originally planned to be leaning.

If we want both Wilshire and Santa Monica Blvd. alignments included in the Long Range Transportation Plan, in addition to a Sepulveda Line, we need to make our voices heard pronto.

Please e-mail metroplan@metro.net and make your voice heard.

People with automobile-entitlement who want all transportation money spent on road building and freeway expansion in a futile attempt to restore the previous quality of the car culture, the NIMBYs who want to continue to delude themselves they live in Sam Yorty's suburban-lifestyle Los Angeles, and bus-only transit extremists make themselves heard. Don't expect someone else to do your advocacy for you. They need to hear from people who support the world class transit system Los Angeles needs too.

[lsm]

Predicting exactly how much time and how much money we will waste by 2030 if we fail to invest now in this transportation infrastructure is as hazy as predicting exactly how much it will cost to build, operate and maintain. We can clearly predict, however, that our population and energy costs should continue to increase and that buiding these projects will cost much more than our currently cash-strapped city, county, state and federal governments will be able to cough up. Also, although we may debate the exact magnitude of the difference, we should clearly see that the long-term costs of not building these projects will far outweigh the short-term costs of building them. Tempting as it may be to bury our heads in the sand and stint on paying for infrastructure, this penny-wise-pound-foolish approach will leave financial, quality of life and environmental disasters as our legacy to future Southern Californians. The admitedly onerous expense of building these systems now pales compared to the long-term costs of ducking our responsibilities.

Because current government funding can not fund these vital projects, we need now to consider how best to pay for them. We should be well past the discussion of if we should build them. What combination of new taxes, private-public partnerships, development districts, congestion pricing and user fees will best build them should be our current discussion. We may also want to discuss if Metro is the best organization to complete these projects quickly and economically. Throughout these discussions, however, we should remain clear with ourselves and with our elected officials that we demand that we invest in these projects and that we build them as quickly as possible.

[Michael Ballard]

Scare tactics. Seems to have worked for Iraq. No, if the MTA doesn't build more lines for Metro Rail, then there will be a slowdown as large as they say. Too much money has been invested in the freeway system as it is, and it doesn't relieve congestion. Give people alternatives to driving. Rail mass transit is the best, most efficient way of moving large numbers of people. Look at the success of the Blue and Red lines to see how people take to them.

[Dan W.]

I'll state the obvious.

The glory days of the car culture are over. The best days of driving a single-occupancy automobile in Southern California are LONG behind us and there is nothing Caltrans can do to bring that back. In fact, the quality of single-occupancy motoring in Southern California is only going to continue to decline.

The only alternative to keeping Los Angeles economically and environmentally sustainable is building quality mass transit, or rather RE-building it since we had a mass transit system until the late 1950's. We need to build and invest in our public transit infrastructure with the same fervor and zeal over the next five decades that we did with road and freeways over the last five. The limits of sprawl have been reached. With millions more coming to Los Angeles County over the next few decades, that means increasing density -- meaning more rail and bus, not roads and cars -- and no guarantee of the ability to live a suburban lifestyle in ALL neighborhoods in Los Angeles.

The mythical Los Angeles "car culture" has been based on the assumption that you and everyone you know, and everyone you would want to meet professionally and socially, has a car and will be willing and able to drive and park it anytime, anyplace, anywhere in Southern California, cheaply and conveniently, in all neighborhoods. This car culture enabled people living and working in urban environments to live atypical suburban lifestyles. Public transportation is seen in this model as merely "transportation welfare" for the poor who "would surely buy a car if they could afford one" and the marginal who aren't worth consideration. The underpinnings of this "car culture" -- namely cheap gasoline, acceptable levels of congestion, room to expand and a sense of entitlement are all falling apart at the seams.

A total transformation is taking place in Southern California. People who stick their heads in the sand and say, "this isn't New York" to shut down the discussion are in denial about the inevitable. What we are witnessing isn't Los Angeles transforming into New York. If we are lucky, Los Angeles is transforming into a city more like London, which is also a giant sprawl, but has a vast network of commuter rail, heavy rail, light rail, and a comprehensive bus system. It is total fallacy to state that "Los Angeles isn't New York and mass transit won't work here because of its sprawl and size" when the truth is there are sprawling cities around the world like London with great mass transit. But it really isn't about Los Angeles transforming into any other city. It's about Los Angeles transforming into the metropolis it would have become had mass transit not been dismantled decades ago in favor of fifty years of social engineering in favor of the car culture.

What we are witnessing now is a painful process as people who've grown a sense of entitlement to live a suburban lifestyle within an urban environment are coming to grips with the fact that if they want a surburban, low-density, automobile-based lifestyle, they will have to move to the actual suburbs, and just because they feel entitled to one because of what their neighborhood was like in 1965 doesn't mean they will be able to have one in that neighborhood now.

Even the people who are unwilling to use transit for whatever reason will still see changes in their lifestyles. They will no longer be able to assume that they and everyone else can conveniently drive into and park in any neighborhood in Southern California. Downtown and Century City may both indeed become very car unfriendly. Warner Center and North Hollywood may become much more like Century City. This means that they will have to take into account public transit accessibility in their professional appointments and in their social engagements whether or no they use it themselves, whereas before they just ignored the issue.

In the supremacy of the car culture, rural areas became suburban. Now areas which were suburban when Sam Yorty was mayor will become increasingly dense and urban, such as the Southeast San Fernando Valley. People who have a sense of entitlement to a suburban lifestyle within ALL of Los Angeles will go into the future kicking and screaming, but into the future they will go or they will relocate elsewhere.

Anyone who wants to continue to use a car will of course be allowed to do so, as long as they can continue to absorb the ever-increasing costs in time and money and congestion. But they will no longer be able to assume that everyone else will of course make the same decision.

If you have doubts at what I am saying, look at NBC/Universal's decision to relocate to the Universal City Red Line stop. Here is a non-altruistic corporation that has decided it is in its long-term business interest to be subway accessible because they will no longer be able to plan and count on their clients and employees being automatically able and willing to drive an automobile to their current car-friendly location. That this was underreported in the Los Angeles Times and L.A. Weekly is obvious. Denial about the decay of L.A.'s car culture runs very deep.

No one voted for this, of course. But some things in life aren't open to a vote. Economic globalization putting downward pressure on American wages wasn't up to a vote. Losing my hair wasn't up to a vote. The decline of Los Angeles "car culture" isn't up to a vote. The ONLY thing for us to decide is whether the decline in Los Angeles "car culture" comes with public, mass transit alternative that keeps us economically and environmentally sustainable or experiencing the disastrous economic and environmental costs of not building one.

Instead of advocating wasting money on further futile road and freeway expansion in attempt to hold off the inevitable, people who want the "car culture" back to the quality it used to be need to invest their resources in inventing a time machine instead. The latter is more likely to happen.