Density maps help explain traffic

Someone recently asked me a simple question: Why is there traffic? I babbled on for a while trying to give an answer that involved many elements: cheap land, the freedom autos afford, historically cheap gas, zoning efforts that segregated housing from commercial and industrial areas, lack of coordinated planning, lack of investment in mass transit. And so on.

Yet, instead of a treatise, I think there are two maps that explain it pretty well. The one above shows employment density -- the number of jobs -- in Los Angeles County in the year 2030, with the projection based on today's numbers.

The colors represent job density of different areas in the above map.

white = 0 to 5,000 jobs per square mile
green = 5,001 to 10,000 jobs per square mile
yellow = 10,001 to 50,000 jobs per square mile
orange = 50,001 to 100,000 jobs per square mile
red = 100,001 to 244,918 jobs per square mile

The map below is of population density per square mile in the county. In the map below, the darker the color, the higher the density:

light tan: 142 to 563 people per square mile
dark tan: 4,390 to 5,787 people per square mile
lightest green: 6,468 to 7,742 people per square mile
medium green: 8,934 to 10,178 people per square mile
dark green: 12,258 to 12,499 people per square mile

The two maps together show that a lot of the job density and people density are in different places. Thus, people have to drive to get where they're working, and back.

It also should be noted that Metro is using the top map to justify expanding mass transit on the Westside. If the information is correct -- and it seems intuitive that it's on base -- there's a huge number of jobs from downtown to the ocean, most notably in Beverly Hills, Century City and Westwood.

That's also why it's likely that Metro later this summer or early fall will say the best way to serve the Westside is to build a subway. The train, if the stations are located well, has the potential to get people to a lot of jobs -- provided, of course, linkages to the subway are provided from other transit lines.

Given all the talk right now about mass transit and the planning of future lines, I'm curious what you think these maps show. What's the best place to put transit? Where shouldn't it go?

-- Steve Hymon

Top map: Metro / Southern California Assn. of Governments

Bottom map: U.S. Census Bureau

Comments

[Bengford]

I think it is important to get at the root cause of why people have to drive so far to work in the first place and fixing that issue. Has anyone considered the following:

People change jobs and locations - duh.
People are stuck in their house and can't move due to Prop 13.
People therefore are stuck in traffic living too far from work.
Creating more transportation options does not solve root cause of problem.

I chose to live closer to work and sold my house in Woodland Hills and bought comparable house in westside. Same price house but instead of paying $2K a year in prop tax I pay $12K, a 500% increase.

There is a HUGE penalty of relocating closer to work.
Reexamine Prop 13 and all the detrimental results or use tax $ to create incentives for those who relocate closer to job.

Isn't this a better solution.

[Kelly Broberg]

"Anybody notice that there's a giant swath of land in OC with a high number of jobs? ..... it's probably the highest concentration of jobs that has no rail access in all of So cal."

YES! I notice it daily, as I take my East/West bus from Long Beach to Santa Ana. The Metrolink is fine if you are coming from the North or South, but I agree, nothing efficient exists to meet the needs of a workforce traveling East/West into Central OC. BRT is proposed for 2009 connecting LB to SA Civic Center, but I still dream of the day OC will offer an efficient and affordable rail system.

Kelly

"Go somewhere creative - www.BusHaiku.com"

[Douglas Forasté]

While employment data are important factors in assessing traffic needs, other considerations exist. Approximately 40K students attend UCLA, 34K USC, 20K Cal State LA and 38K Cal State Long Beach. These campus also have thousands of staff and faculty. Of these institutions perhaps only Long Beach State receives marginally adequate service from LA Metro rail, and that only because LB Transit has its own better than average bus system. Making campuses accessible from LA Metro rail would do as much to get people out of their cars as getting them to work in Beverly Hills. Cost-conscious students would begin to live along lines that would get them to and from their campuses. Anyone who's driven to UCLA when class is not in session knows the potential results.

Further, 10 million passengers use LAX every year. Rerouting the Green Line to LAX instead of Redondo Beach (of all places!) would begin to empty the 405 and 105 parking lots. If people will take the BART to SFO, they'll take LA Metro rail to LAX--if it ever goes there! Convenient free shuttle, my derrière.

[Northridge commuter to SGV]

The maps really need to be expanded, but they definitely show some of our problem areas.

Our Metro transit experts apparently have no clue as to what is really needed, and how to make it happen sooner. There are a lot of old railroad lines that are no longer in use, traveling east-west 210. Why did we tear out the old ones and put in a very short electric new rail that serves only a small portion of the people who need it? The old rail lines still work; the Metro just needs to put them to use. (I expect that the Railroads will start offering passenger service first.)
Same for Canoga Park line that is proposed. They're going to tear out the old railroad and put a new one in it's place. A stupid waste of time & money!
And Bus Service? You can't get anywhere outside of the metro l.a. area without it taking hours.
The latest Metro check for me would be 3+ hours each way, plus having to still get another system to go the final distance (+/- 6 miles) and walk.

Here's a reality check: why don't they make it easier for people to both commute when necessary and telecommute whenever possible? Incentives to businesses to get people off of the roads and working from home or small, local group settings instead of clogging our roads and highways?

[Jim Townes]

Excuse but that is the stupidest map I have ever seen - the entire city of los angeles has the same density - that explains a lot. Please educate us not waste or time with this. I would rather read about Paris Hilton and Lindsay Lohan at least then I go in with no expectations - I thought I was going to learn something - I just wanted to learn is that so wrong

[Dan W.]

I agree with the assessment that the maps "by city" aren't quite representative. Zip Codes or Census Tracks would be a better measurement.

Thank you for the connection to the other map.

http://lewis.sppsr.ucla.edu/special/metroamerica/LAPOPDEN/density90.jpg

[Transit Planner]

The maps confirm that the Red/Purple line should be extended east via the El Monte Busway. It could operate at-grade all the way out to Pomona and Ontarion International Airport. It's also interesting to see that Central O.C. has a lot more density of people and jobs than Expo !

[jeremy]

Posted by: Morgan Wick
"The population density map confirms what I already figured: a rail line for the SGV should follow the 10, not the 210."

amen brother! though with that argument you tend to get the "metro link serves that corridor" "el monte busway" "blah blah blah"

metrolinks timetables are a joke and there fairs are insane. not to mention the only stops are el monte [counter productive to anyone going west] or cal state, which is about a 3 miles from downtown. [might as well drive and get it over with]

as far as the busway. once you get off the busway, youll be siting in traffic for a 3o+ on the non-busway route of you conveyance.

...or in your car stuck on valley blvd.

[Morgan Wick]

The population density map confirms what I already figured: a rail line for the SGV should follow the 10, not the 210.

The Purple Line is great but a 405 line, connecting population centers in the South Bay with job centers in the Westside, is even better.

The census tract maps make it even clearer that the Purple Line should have been built yesterday and explains why the Red Line is the most popular of the existing lines.

[unico]

the reason that the pop density map is a bit off is because it shows results by city and not zip code. so while los angeles as a city is not as dense as other places, it does contain some very dense areas. a more accurate protrayal would factor density by zip code or census tract.

and what i hate is that proponents for rail in other parts of the city cite the amount of jobs that exist on the westside and other areas. but plenty of jobs exist on the east side as well.
lookin at both of these maps the areas that have high job and population density are the south and east LA adjacent areas. who also happen to be crisscrossed by long abandoned tracks.

it would make sense to bring rail to a city like maywood(along randolph were a commuter train once ran). its high in both jobs and people. it is also park poor and public trans dependant. an east west slauson line would serve areas that fit the job and people density criterion.

but i think that since most of the jobs on the east side are factory work, they might not be seen as equally important...

[Collin]

The problem with the lower map is that it shows population density by city, not by census tract. The result is that we cannot see how population density differs across individual districts of Los Angeles. The population density of large cities is distorted by large areas of unpopulated land, such as the Santa Monica Mountains.

Perhaps a more helpful map:
http://lewis.sppsr.ucla.edu/special/metroamerica/LAPOPDEN/density90.jpg

[Jose]

This is interesting. I had written to Steve a while back about the local LA county transit agencies seeming inability to do the small things - fixing on and off ramps so traffic does not back up on the freeway every day, adding lanes where right of way exists, and contrasted it to the experience of seeing small things done when I lived in OC using Measure M money. I directly related it to commuting from Lakewood to the south bay. Looking at the map, I can see why the MTA is so obsessed with fixing the west side problems, but I still don't understand why some of the small things can't be fixed in the south bay.

I just hope they are not waiting to try to hit a home run of some sort by extending the green line once everything else has gone into the tank. But this is LA County - where great things get built and then are neglected until they die a miserable death.

[Chris Bucka]

Kudos, Steve! You've managed to entice actual industry professionals to interact with us commonfolk regarding the transportation issue, as Jody Litvak chimed in. Perhaps this will help steal the political prowess and reasonless justification of bureaucrats to fight the will of the people for more rail! Looks like those maps also make our state Senate majority leader look a little selfish regarding her gold line extension proposition over the Westside subway, no?

[Damon]

Anybody notice that there's a giant swath of land in OC with a high number of jobs? This is the general area that our failed Centerline light rail was supposed to connect.

We still have the Metrolink (with upcoming service increases), but you can see that there's a huge section, namely the South Coast plaza area and Irvine business district, that is nowhere near any Metrolink stations. With the exception of the westside, it's probably the highest concentration of jobs that has no rail access in all of So cal. Yet, I fear it will be decades before we get anything built.

[altadena]

I love maps, but I've got to say, that population density map looks a bit iffy. MacArthur Park and Koreatown have roughly the same density as Pasadena or the Valley? I don't think so. Whether this is now or 2030, the data looks off.

[Jody Litvak]

The top map was prepared for the Westside Extension Transit Corridor Study, however your choice of wording could be used by some to imply that Metro has predetermined the outcome of the study and is altering the data. The map is based on SCAG data that is required to be used for all the planning studies. The data should and will drive the staff recommendation in determining the best mode and alignment for this and the other projects under study.

Jody Litvak
Metro Westside Extension Study Team

[David Raether]

Here's a project I haven't heard anyone discuss, but sure seems it would make sense:

At the Lake Ave station of the Gold Line in Pasadena, send a light right line straight west through Glendale and link it up to the Red Line terminus in North Hollywood and extend that up to the Burbank Airport.

Then turn the Orange Line into at-grade light rail that links in at the Burbank Airport.

And call the whole thing the Orange Line.

The thousands of San Gabriel Valley residents who work in Glendale, Burbank and the San Fernando Valley could get off the perpetually clogged 134/101.

Come to think of it, why isn't the Orange Line under discussion for conversion into light rail?

[Spokker]

The purple line extension should have been done a long time ago. It should have been done in the first place. It and the downtown regional connector are the most urgently needed transit projects in Los Angeles.