Driver distraction, Santa Monica traffic and sales tax: Ramping up, July 31

Santa Monica's traffic woes

I listened to "Which Way L.A.?" on the drive home last night and it was a good show. Host Warren Olney looked at the upcoming ballot measure in Santa Monica that would lower the amount of commercial development allowed in order to prevent future traffic.

I'm not so sure that the proponent or opponent to the ballot measure made much of a case that traffic is fixable in Santa Monica. Everyone on the show agreed about the problem: The city's population swells to more than twice its nighttime population because of the number of jobs located there.

Later, I went to the Census Bureau's website and quickly found this fun statistic:

In 1990, Santa Monica's population was 86,905.

In 2000, Santa Monica's population was 84,084.

In 2006, Santa Monica's population was 88,050.

A couple more keystrokes and this statistic came up:

In 2000, Santa Monica had 47,863 housing units.

In 2006, Santa Monica had 49,045 housing units -- an increase of just 1,182.

Something else was immediately striking about the 2006 numbers. In Santa Monica, 30.3% of the housing units are owned by the occupant and 69.7% are rentals. That's almost exactly opposite the national average for 2006, with 67.3% of housing units owned by the occupant and 32.7% rentals.

In other words, there's a lack of housing available for purchase -- presumably squeezing an already pricey market. And while adding a ton of jobs in recent years, Santa Monica apparently hasn't added enough housing to boost its population by any significant number. The result is no surprise -- a lot of employees have to drive there to work. While guests on "Which Way LA?" talked about limiting development or putting in more mixed-use development, I didn't hear anyone say "maybe we should add thousands more units of housing to go along with all those jobs."

I'm not saying that's the solution. I honestly don't know. Maybe all that housing would get built and then bought by people who don't work in Santa Monica but want to live near the ocean. But it seems like it's worth discussing. In fact, it would hardly surprise me if Bottleneckers -- a breed known for its urban planning acumen -- begin a smart conversation on this blog's comment board.

The sales tax proposal

I mentioned in yesterday morning's post that the next hurdle for the proposal to raise the sales tax to pay for more mass transit and road fixes in Los Angeles County comes Monday when the State Senate's Appropriations Committee takes up the issue. The next hurdle beyond that comes Tuesday when the Los Angeles County Board of Supervisors has to vote to put the sales tax on the ballot.

A simple majority of the five-member board is needed for approval. The word I'm hearing from the County Hall of Administration is that the board is likely to move the initiative to the ballot, following the lead of the larger Metro Board (on which all five supervisors serve).

That said, anything is possible when it's time to vote. Only two of the supes, Yvonne Brathwaite Burke and Zev Yaroslavsky, have voted for going to the ballot with the sales tax. Gloria Molina abstained at last week's Metro Board meeting, Mike Antonovich voted against it and Don Knabe was absent from the meeting, but voted against the proposal in June when it was in an earlier form.

If I learn anything new today, I'll let you know.

Questions for Councilwoman Perry anyone?

I'm lunching today with Los Angeles Councilwoman Jan Perry, who represents much of downtown and parts of South L.A. If there is anything you'd like to know from the councilwoman on the transit front, e-mail me a question at steve.hymon@latimes.com and I'll ask.

Driver distraction

The most interesting traffic story to cross my desk in recent days comes from the Atlantic Monthly, where writer John Staddon argues that too many street signs make roads in the U.S. more dangerous.

Staddon, who grew up in the UK, argues that all those signs (particularly stop signs) and speed limits distract motorists from the matter at hand -- driving -- and that driving is actually safer in the UK, where roads are often not nearly as nice as in the U.S. He writes:

"A particularly vexing aspect of the U.S. policy is that speed limits seem to be enforced more when speeding is safe. As a colleague once pointed out, 'An empty highway on a sunny day? You’re dead meat!' A more systematic effort to train drivers to ignore road conditions can hardly be imagined. By training drivers to drive according to the signs rather than their judgment in great conditions, the American system also subtly encourages them to rely on the signs rather than judgment in poor conditions, when merely following the signs would be dangerous."

I'm not sure that I entirely buy his arguments. A lot of the dangerous driving that I see on a daily basis comes from motorists being reckless or timid and driving either too fast or too slow. That means other motorists must avoid them and the weaving and braking often means close calls.

Recent Bottleneck items that may interest you

Local bridges still waiting for seismic retrofit

Is it time to return to the 55 mph speed limit?

Now the battle begins over the sales tax

-- Steve Hymon

Photo credit: Brian Vander Brug / Los Angeles Times

Comments

[SMresident]

The problem in SM is that the city has overdeveloped business space and continues to do so at the cost of residents quality of life. To add a few hundredK housing units on top of that is foolish. Traffic will be worse, not better. And where do the water and energy come from, and waste and sewage go? The answer is not contin ued growth, but logical development, within the bounds of reason, as RIFT allows. Rapid overdevelopment generates revenue, but also unsolved problems. Enough!

[Josh]

Yes, just build more housing in Santa Monica so people can walk to work, restaurants, markets, etc. Couple that with a few subways and you'll see a much better traffic situation. SM needs to allow others to live there. The anti-development groups in SM are killing the city they say they are trying to save...

[Marcotico]

On another note, i don't think less street signs make UK drivers safer, I think it is the fact they get their license at an older age, pay much more for the classes and the license itself, and have much more strenuous driving tests there. Same thing with most european countries. Recent laws limiting teenagers ability to drive with friends in the car are a great start. Much more education is needed. When I took my driving test almost 20 years ago, I didn't even have to paralel park. I just had to back up in a straight line!

[Marcotico]

Santa Monica should do three proven things to improve congestion and housing in its city, which would still be consistent with regional congestion patterns. Both come from Donald Shoup's book "The High Cost of Free Parking". They could institute parking maximums rather than parking minimums, or "de-couple" parking from housing. Thus each apartment would not be gauranteed parking, but rather residents would have to pay market rates for parking. This would ensure that new residents eaither worked locally or were lower income or students who don't own cars.

Second they can enforce parking cash-outs where, employers have to offer employees the option of cash for their parking privileges.

Third they could use Shoup style parking meters. which are variably priced to ensure 85% vacancy in commercial centers. This drives more people into parking garages for long term stays and frees up street parking for short term stays, and in both cases increases transit trips to commercial zones.

These recomendations are easy to enforce at the city level, and they take care of the three non-discretionary reasons people get in their car: to get home, to get to work, and to go shopping

Shoup's biggest contribution to transportation planning is the realization that parking is the main attractor for car trips. I'm not a libertarian, but if the market dictates the cost of parking at your destination than an equilibrium will be reached which will make transit, biking, and moving closer, more economically sensible choices than driving to work or to shop.

[Gary Kavanagh]

I thought this proposal was fishy from the first I heard of it, hearing some guy passing out fliers at the co-op market, phrasing it as a solution to traffic woes. Capping commercial development will not solve anything, what we need is better transit options into the city, and more affordable housing options for those who want to live and work here. Currently I rent an apartment in Santa Monica and work here as well, doing all my commuting on bicycle.

The proposed subway, though an expensive up front investment, will do more to alleviate traffic woes then anything else can right now. With the whole west side sitting as an island from fast transit options elsewhere in the city, the 10 and 405 freeways are the only options for many, and they are a disaster at rush hour. Bicycles and even in-line skates move faster in that mess.

[Jonathan]

I live in Santa Monica and commute out for work (often via big blue bus). I would rather stay and work in the city, but haven't been able to swing that just yet.

Other than a job site, it's a nice city to live in with urban and recreation amenities I can't find elsewhere in the LA region.

[BOB2]

Steve,

Maybe, our road signs really aren't siuch a distraction after all. The only persons who actually are paying any attention to our road signs are people from law abiding England?

Isn't it pretty obvious that 90% or more of our American drivers don't pay the least bit of attention at all to those sgns? They're way too busy texting, or putting on make up, to be distracted by road signs.

Bob

[Darrell Clarke]

I posted comments and a detailed outline of the proposed sales tax at http://lavisions.blogspot.com .

[David Raether]

If ever a more comprehensive argument could be made for the Subway to the Sea and the Expo Phase 2 to both be completed, then I can't think of one, based on these statistics.

Basically, the population of Santa Monica has remained flat while traffic congestion has exploded because of all the new jobs that have emerged in the city.

In other words -- commuters are coming into Santa Monica.

Give them an alternative to driving into the city: give them light rail and a subway!

It's simple

[Jerard]

Here's a quick solution, build Expo Line to Santa Monica!

[Irwin]

I listened to yesterday's Which Way LA and I just want to point out that Warren had some traffic and development experts on the show and they all said the same thing... the proposed ballot initiative in Santa Monica will not reduce traffic (current or future) because Santa Monica is not an island. The West LA region will continue to increase in density and traffic will spill over to Santa Monica regardless of what development restriction the city has implemented. In addition, it is clear from the discussion on Which Way LA that the pro side of the initiative is not really interested in traffic problems, they are a front for the anti-development groups which have apparently found that talking about traffic is a good way to sneak a no-development law onto the books.

[Tony Fernandez]

If you saturate the demand for housing then the prices should go down. That being said, I really don't know how high that demand is or much about economics to be sure about that. But I think Steve hit the nail right on the head, longer commutes means more traffic.

[Bill Stone]

Santa Monica doesn't need more housing unless it's the kind of housing that jobs paying $40K - $50K will enable a purchase. That's the highest salary of the vast majority of all the new jobs that you're talking about. More housing will not go to the wage earners working in Santa Monica. It will go to rich empty nesters now living elsewhere, which will dramatically increase the density and dramatically degrade the quality of life for the residents of Santa Monica.