Calling out around the world

One of my goals for this blog is to offer a global perspective on transportation. Getting from Point A to Point B is something everyone has to do sooner or later, and I'm keenly interested in how different people accomplish this. I do think that sometimes we have a bit of tunnel vision here in Southern California because of the volume of car traffic.

As someone who lived previously in New York City and Chicago, I can ensure you that we do not have a lock-hold on traffic. In fact, I still think Chicago -- circa 1990 and '91, when I was there -- offered some traffic and parking tortures on par with L.A.

I'd like to round up a gaggle of guest bloggers both in the U.S. and abroad to write occasionally about transportation in their towns. What's working? What's not? What's the current controversy? Any good ideas that can be transported to Southern California?

It doesn't matter to me if you live in London, Modoc County or the Siberian outback. I just want perspective. If you're interested or know of anyone (or another blogger) who may be, e-mail me at steve.hymon@latimes.com.

I pulled the photo from our database at The Times. It shows bikes parked outside a train station in a major city. Take a guess which city -- the answer is on the jump page.

-- Steve Hymon

Photo: Gail Fisher / Los Angeles Times

Amsterdam!

Comments

[Niels]

Maybe a bit late, but I'd like to add that the picture is actually a bit deceiving: in fact, this parking place is part of the 'bike flat', a five story bike parking facility.

For another picture: http://yourinnervagabond.com/blog/?p=371

[Dassie]

Driving to LAX and O'Hare is one thing. However, Chicago has a subway that goes from downtown directly into the Airport. In other words, there is an alternative to driving in Chicago.

Draw your own conclusions.

[Mark Jolles]

Steve,

Thanks for getting back to me this morning. I tried calling you because I wanted to be assured that you got the main points from what I was sending. You were not available and I was able to speak with Bill Nottingham. Specifically I asked him why the LA Times was not reporting this stuff. It was presented to several other people who were also confused as to why the newspaper had not reported this, especially considering it gets to the basic crux of the problems the region is experiencing. Bill was consistent in stating that he was uncertain whether or not it was newsworthy and brought up something about the issues being accepted as political decisions. I was not particularly clear on what he was saying and I am not sure he was clear on what I was saying either.

My point is:

Why is MTA (LACMTA) giving up hundreds of millions if not billions of dollars of federal New Starts funds that other metro areas get regularly. MTA did not qualify projects like the Pasadena Gold Line, Blue Line, Expo Phase I, or Orange Line for Federal New Starts money. After the fact they say they don't have enough money for mitigation and grade separations on those lines, the things New Starts is designed to fund. At the same time MTA doesn't have money for new projects like Expo Phase II or the Purple line extension. They could've combined both Expo Phases and used the $900 million as matching for both. On the other hand they want to pass a bond measure for more local money and are begging the state for money to replace the money that they are giving up? Specifically, because MTA pulled out of the Federal New Starts program they are spending $900 million totally local/state on Expo phase one. That project was in the pipeline to get a 50% to 80% federal match. The $900 million, if programmed properly, could have been leveraged to $1.8 billion to $4.5 billion.

At the same time MTA is spending $1 billion, again with no federal match, on a new carpool lane on the 405 Sepulveda Pass for more cars from the valley to go to the West Side. The West Side roads are already over capacity or at "gridlock" as the Times might say. And MTA has just spent $1 or $2 billion (I can't keep track) on a gridlocked 405 widening to move even more traffic into the gridlocked West Side surface street system. Leveraged with the Federal New Starts matching funds, paid by our Federal taxes, this money could've built transit lines to the valley AND the sea. Other metro areas do it successfully. The LA Times is not asking, why not MTA?

As a more complex yet subtle point, the federal government invests in transportation projects for future demand, not current demand. USDOT paid up to 90% matching for the existing Los Angeles freeway system, primarily for land acquisition and to "grade separate" and build interchanges for eight lanes of traffic all over the region. That system is now full. Why would USDOT not pay 50% to 80% for a grade separated two track transit system in the Los Angeles region for future travel growth? Add to that, our filthy air violates Federal standards which would give our government even more desire to help out. For six years the USDOT/Federal Transit Administration tried to participate financially on Expo Phase I. Yet they were rebuffed by MTA. Why?

FYI - Future or unmet current travel growth is sometimes referred to in economic as well as transportation terms as "latent, potential, or forecasted" demand. This demand is clearly forecasted for this region. LACMTA is continuing to make the same mistakes they've made since the 1960's, trying to patch a dam that has long since broke. This instead of building a more reliable much higher capacity "dam". How is this not news? It's news for other metropolitan areas and it is news here. The LA Times may or may not get it, but the public who pays by sitting in traffic with bad air and high gas prices everyday surely wants to know.

http://reports.manta.com/icon/customercare/functionhelp/concept_latent_demand.shtml
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=latent+demand+transportation&btnG=Search

In the end, this is not just a transportation problem, this is an economic problem. And it is not being reported clearly. If the region does not provide enough transportation capacity for future demand, (it does not even meet current "latent" demand) than economic growth moves elsewhere. This growth has moved, it is moving, and it will continue to move. As the Pacific Rim has exploded economically over the last decade, why is downtown Los Angeles so underdeveloped? Why do so many redevelopment areas exist in Los Angeles and continue to struggle, even with public subsidies? This economic urban phenomenon was originally described in the 1960's as the "donut effect" and it has been happening here.

"In the US, the "doughnut effect" has combined with widening income gaps and industrial restructuring to create city centre replicas of the Third World surrounded by a ring of more affluent suburbs. While this process is not -- yet -- so apparent in Australian cities, the "doughnut effect" is having a serious effect on the urban environment."

http://www.greenleft.org.au/1992/57/3186

Thanks again for beginning to shine some light on this subject with your blog and reporting. Please shine it brighter and more clearly.

Mark Jolles
mjolles@pacbell.net
310-242-0660

[Bob]

I lived in Chicago for 20 year and moved to LA in 2002:

Chicago (9 miles to O'Hare): 1 hour - up to 2 hours from O'Hare to the city on Friday afternoons

Los Angeles (20 miles from Van Nuys to LAX): 1 hr 20 minutes, tops. 25 minutes at 7am I do it every day at rush hour.

Draw your own conclusions.