| 1.
Why does Southern California need a highway
advocacy group? Don't we have enough
highways here? 2.
Shouldn't we accept the fact that we cannot build
our way out of congestion? Every time a new
freeway is built or widened, it just fills up
with traffic.
3. Many transit advocates
claim that public transportation has not been
given a proper chance to meet our needs.
Buses are underfunded and do not go where people
need to go. Rail transit is just starting
again but still does not come close to having a
comprehensive system like our road system does.
Shouldn't we let rail/bus systems "catch up"?
4. It sounds like you are
saying that transit has been a failure. But
look at the new Metro Rail systems in Los Angeles
County. The Blue Line is enjoys the highest
ridership of all light rail lines in the nation.
The Red and Green Lines have also been very
successful as well. It would appear that
these rail lines have taken a number of people
off of the freeways, right?
5. Fine. People like to
drive their cars as evidenced by the high levels
of auto usage you cited above. But cars
pollute, freeway building causes significant
environmental impacts, and promotes undesirable
sprawl development. We need to discourage
auto usage and encourage more compact land-use
designs that are more transit friendly.
6. All of this sounds good.
But where are we going to get the money to pay
for it? I read somewhere that California
already suffers from a $110 billion+ deficit in
transportation funding. Gas taxes do not
seem to keep up with needs, toll roads are
controversial, and people just don't seem to want
to do anything about it. It seems
impossible.
7. What about such issues as
"quality of life", "liveable
communities" and "Smart Growth"?
8. So what can we do?
Politicians talk and interest groups fight.
But traffic gets worse and worse every year.
And nobody is talking about it or doing anything
about it.
1. Why does Southern
California need a highway advocacy group?
Don't we have enough highways here?
A
common misperception is that Southern California
has too many freeways and highways. Indeed,
the region has quite a comprehensive system that
will get you wherever you need to go.
However, Los Angeles County ranks near the bottom
of major metropolitan areas in terms of freeway
miles per capita. No wonder we have such
crushing congestion!! There are more and more
people trying to crowd onto the same number of
freeway lanes. It is a recipe for disaster.
Other counties (Orange, San Diego, etc.) have
done much better than Los Angeles but still face
a shortfall of freeway lane mileage.
There
are many groups in Southern California alone that
advocate for more transit projects. Yet
less than 3% of trips (based on passenger miles)
take place on transit; the rest of us use the
freeway, highway, and arterial road system.
And few people have been willing to step forward
to speak up for our roads.
Back to Top
2. Shouldn't we accept the
fact that we cannot build our way out of
congestion? Every time a new freeway is
built or widened, it just fills up with traffic.
No!
We should not just accept this so-called "fact".
The RPPI (Reason Public Policy Institute) notes
that
"It
is often said that "We can't build our
way out of congestion." However, it IS
physically possible. "Build it, and they
will come"--the it being extra
road space and the they being cars--is
true in conditions of congestion-caused
latent demand. But latent demand could be
satisfied if the supply of road space were
increased enough, since demand for road space
is not infinite. If demand were infinite
there would be no free-flowing roads at all."
("How to "Build Our Way Out of
Congestion--Innovative Approaches to
Expanding Urban Highway Capacity", Peter
Samuel and Robert W. Poole, RPPI, January
1999).
RPPI
really states it best here. Freeways fill
up today because the system is always running
behind the demand. Had we kept up with the
original freeway plans developed by Caltrans in
the mid-20th Century, congestion would hardly
exist now. Instead, we build barely 1/3 of
the originally conceived system, while our
population has grown quicker than even thought at
that time.
Today,
we cannot just give up on building freeways, even
in already built up areas. Of course, it
will be expensive and controversial to do so and
such ideas have not been discussed for decades.
But with a population in Los Angeles County of 9
1/2 million right now and expected to grow to 13
million over the next few decades, now is the
time to address these issues. The question
is not "Can we afford to do so?".
It should be, "Can we afford not to do so."
In
addition, we would not have to build forever.
Much of the growth will occur in what are now
remote areas (Antelope Valley, Inland Empire,
Ventura County, etc.) So if we close the
gaps and put in the freeways we need in the
urbanized areas, we could fix most if not all of
the problem for all time to come.
To
correct this problem in the future, we also need
to secure rights-of-way in planned urbanized
areas before new development takes place.
But this is getting more difficult due to the
unreasonable demands placed by environmental and
some transit advocate groups who are determined
to do anything to stop freeway building and auto
usage.
Back to Top
3. Many transit advocates
claim that public transportation has not been
given a proper chance to meet our needs.
Buses are underfunded and do not go where people
need to go. Rail transit is just starting
again but still does not come close to having a
comprehensive system like our road system does.
Shouldn't we let rail/bus systems "catch up"?
Fair
question. There is some truth to this.
Because transit is such an expensive undertaking,
requiring large government subsidies, transit
agencies have struggled just to keep enough buses
on the ground to meet the needs of the transit
dependent and other persons wishing not to drive.
It is interesting, however, how these same
transit agencies are investing billions (with a
"B") into rail projects that only serve
a fraction of transit ridership. No wonder
that even many bus riders in LA County have
lobbied against rail!
It
should also be noted that rail did have its
chance in the early 20th Century via the Pacific
Electric trolley system. This system did
cover much of LA and Orange counties with a
network of lines. However, when the
automobile became more available and affordable
to the everyday citizen, people flocked to use it
instead, desiring the convenience and flexibility
it offered. Many "conspiracy"
theories have been offered, claiming that GM and
other auto manufacturers purposely pushed the
Pacific Electric out of business. There are
various views on this. But there is no
question that the rail line's days were numbered
anyway as ridership fell quite quickly.
Freeways and roads were only built because people
demanded them; they weren't built to hope for
demand as are rail lines today.
We
should continue investing in transit systems
today for those who want and need them. But
under two conditions. First of all, funding
should be more in line with actual and reasonable
predictions of usage. Today, transit
receives a huge majority of funding in Los
Angeles County and a sizeable portion of the
transportation budget in other Southern
Californian counties despite continual low
ridership levels. This short changes the 97%
of us who drive and must subsidize those who
can't or won't. Second, transit users need
to pay more of their own way. Although
subsidies of some sort will always be needed,
they should be minimized for all but the poorest
of citizens. Everyone else needs to pay
more of their own way.
Back to Top
4. It sounds like you are
saying that transit has been a failure. But
look at the new Metro Rail systems in Los Angeles
County. The Blue Line is enjoys the highest
ridership of all light rail lines in the nation.
The Red and Green Lines have also been very
successful as well. It would appear that
these rail lines have taken a number of people
off of the freeways, right?
Not
exactly. It is true that rail systems have
been more successful here than in many other
states. Surprising too since Southern
California has a strong "auto" culture.
However, these rail lines have done nothing to
alleviate congestion on the roadways they
parallel. Consider the following rail lines
and the freeways that parallel them: Red
Line--101 Fwy; Blue Line--710 Fwy; Green
Line--105 Fwy. These freeways are more
congested today than when these rail lines
started operating. It is probable that a
few people left their cars behind to jump on the
new rail lines. But most of the ridership
was just taken off of old bus lines that were
cancelled to prop up ridership on the rail line.
Did
we get our money's worth? Hardly. Los
Angeles County has spent more than $7 billion on
these 3 rail lines alone. That does not
count ongoing operating subsidies that will be
required for the life of these projects.
And more money is being spent to build light rail
to Pasadena and East LA. And a serious
proposal is underway to build a line to West LA
using the abandoned Exposition Blvd. rail line.
Contrast
this with the just over $5 billion that Orange
County has spent under its Measure M sales tax to
widen and improve its freeway system.
Today, many Orange County freeways operate at
near free-flow conditions even during rush hours.
Other freeways have had congestion significantly
reduced as a result. Most Orange County
residents have expressed satisfaction with the
results of Measure M and enjoy a higher quality
of life as a result. On the other hand, LA
County has two half-cent sales taxes (as opposed
to one in Orange, San Diego, San Bernardino, and
Riverside Counties) and has done little to
improve its freeways other than a handful of
carpool lanes As a result, Los Angeles
County freeways endure worse congestion year
after year, despite the fact that its residents
have paid twice as much in sales taxes for
transportation. This does not appear to
have been a good investment for Los Angeles
County residents.
Back to Top
5. Fine. People like
to drive their cars as evidenced by the high
levels of auto usage you cited above. But
cars pollute, freeway building causes significant
environmental impacts, and promotes undesirable
sprawl development. We need to discourage
auto usage and encourage more compact land-use
designs that are more transit friendly.
When
you think about it, all kinds of activities that
we do pollute. Buses pollute. The
electricity used by trolley cars is often
generated by coal-burning stations. Every
time we flush our toilet, cook a meal, turn on
our lights, or eat a hamburger, we are causing
unavoidable impacts to the environment. It
would be desirable in the long-term to have
cleaner burning cars that contributed less to air
pollution. Few would probably disagree on
that point. But the technology does not
exist in an advanced enough form to make this
cost effective. In the meanwhile,
sufficient highway infrastructure is vital to our
region's economy, its ability to attract and keep
good jobs, and to allow people to have a commute
that doesn't leave them frustrated and tired by
the time they get home. Truckers also
depend on our roads to move freight in and out of
our region. The Ports of Los Angeles and
Long Beach are among the busiest in the world.
Rail can handle some but not all of this freight.
Failure to invest in our highways will cause
shipping companies to divert their shipping
elsewhere, hurting our economy. Our best
and brightest minds will also leave for cities
such as Phoenix, Dallas, and Houston that have
invested more in their infrastructure.
In
terms of freeway building, once again, nothing is
without impacts. Not even a new rail line
is built without impacts. But these impacts
can and have been reduced. Current laws
require extensive environmental mitigation and
studies before a road project is built. A
key example of a road building agency being a
good neighbor to the environment is the
Transportation Corridor Agencies (TCA) in Orange
County. The TCA has so far built 3 major
tollways that have won several engineering and
environmental awards. The TCA has gone
above and beyond the call of duty by providing
hundreds of acres of new open space, wildlife
undercrossings, and funding for environmental
projects and foundations. And yet extreme
environmental groups still fail to acknowledge
and appreciate this.
"Sprawl"
is an ugly-sounding and misleading word.
All it really refers to is the natural outward
growth of a metropolitan area in response to
natural population growth. Los Angeles and
vicinity is no exception. Growth means that
our region is seen as a desirable place to live.
We should be worried if growth ever stops.
Being seen as an attractive place to live helps
us recruit the top minds, companies, and
government projects to our region.
Sometimes we take for granted the infrastructure
and underlying factors that have contributed to
our economic success here in Southern California.
It
should be also noted that Orange and Los Angeles
Counties are the second and third most dense
counties in the state, respectively, after San
Francisco County. Los Angeles County is
much more compact than the oft-cited Portland, OR
metropolitan area which has a restrictive urban
growth boundary and spends nearly all of its
money on little-used rail transit. Los
Angeles should be the model for other cities to
follow, with respect to advocates for compact
development. The region has just grown so
much in population that naturally it has extended
outwards. Natural boundaries exist with the
Pacific Ocean and mountains but growth will
continue in the Antelope Valley, the Victorville/High
Desert Area, and much of Riverside, San Diego,
and Imperial Counties. Environmentalists
should encourage growth here in Los Angeles
because otherwise people will move to undeveloped
farmland in the Central Valley, the Sierra Nevada
mountains, and other areas.
Despite
this dense development, people prefer to drive
their cars. Cars provide 24 hour on-demand
door-to-door transportation on a much more cost
efficient basis than transit ever will.
Also, people in Southern California generally
prefer the suburban type development that has
taken place here. The national trend
according to the latest census shows that the
population is moving westward and southward.
Metropolitan areas like Los Angeles, San Diego,
Phoenix, Las Vegas, Dallas, Houston,
Orlando and others are gaining rapidly in
population. Ironically, these metro areas
also enjoy large amounts of lower density
suburban housing and comprehensive freeway
systems. Conversely, older cities such as
New York, Boston, Washington DC, Philadelphia and
others like them have either lost population or
have only had very slow rates of growth.
These cities are more transit oriented and have
freeway systems that are less developed than the
newer Western and Southern cities. We
cannot force people to live in compact, transit-oriented
environments unless we resort to a more
dictatorial form of government. This is
something that hopefully will never happen.
Other than that, our market system is at work and
suburban, auto-friendly metro areas are still
more popular than ever.
Back to Top
6. All of this sounds good.
But where are we going to get the money to pay
for it? I read somewhere that California
already suffers from a $110 billion+ deficit in
transportation funding. Gas taxes do not
seem to keep up with needs, toll roads are
controversial, and people just don't seem to want
to do anything about it. It seems
impossible.
It
does indeed seem impossible but it shouldn't be.
The money is there; our government just isn't
always using it properly. Pat Brown built
our freeway system in the 1950s using a much
lower percentage of our tax dollars than we have
to fork over today. Many people don't
realize that a portion of our gas taxes, paid by
motorists alone, are diverted out of the Highway
Trust Fund and into money-losing and underused
transit programs. The 97% + of people who
drive are massively subsidizing the 3% who don't.
Transit usership is growing little to not at all
which means that are subsidies aren't even
yielding the hoped for benefits. We believe
that all vehicle use taxes should go to benefit
road building. Transit fares should benefit
transit capital investments and operating
expenses.
Most
counties in Southern California have a sales tax
to benefit transportation. This has worked
wonderfully for such counties as Orange, San
Diego, Riverside, and San Bernardino. But
Los Angeles County, as noted before, spends most
of its money on transit, with any available
highway money going to "transit-type"
HOV lanes. Nothing to desperately needed
mixed-flow lanes or new freeways. That
means 97% of people in Los Angeles County who
regularly use their cars to get around are not
getting anything back for what they pay in.
Toll
Roads work. They are a substitute for gas
taxes because those who use the roads pay for
them. The Toll Roads in Orange County (State
Routes 73, 133, 241, and 261) have been very
successful in attracting users. This
despite the fact that parallel freeways
such as Interstate 5 and State Route 55 have
recently been improved. We tend to frown
more on toll lanes (also known as HOT or High
Occupancy Toll Lanes) which lanes that HOV
vehicles can use but single-occupant vehicles
must pay a toll for. This is inherently
unfair since our tax dollars went to build that
lane and that whole freeway. It would be
more acceptable if revenues from the toll lanes
went to new road improvements; unfortunately,
such revenues often are diverted to transit or
"express bus" services as is the case
in San Diego County.
Back to Top
7. What about such issues
as "quality of life", "liveable
communities" and "Smart Growth"?
Essentially,
these words are used by many environmental and
transit advocate groups to convince people to
stop most if not all growth, development, and
suburban land designs. They have done a
good job of taking control of these phrases.
But think about it. What is a "liveable"
community? What is "Smart Growth"?
Does everyone like compact, transit-oriented
downtown areas? If so, then the demographic
trends of our nation aren't showing it.
Look at "liveability" and "quality
of life" in another way. Sure, we'd
all like lots of open space, pristine rivers and
forests. But most of us live in urban areas
for the dynamic lifestyle it offers and for the
job opportunities here. So we make some
tradeoffs. We can and should preserve some
of this open space for us and our descendants.
But some of these extremist groups want to halt
all development or want to cram us into
Manhattan, New York style skyscrapers without
regard to how people feel about it. Even in
Portland, Oregon, the "pioneer" in this
kind of plan, residents are beginning to resist
densification once they realize what this means.
Unfortunately, all too often it is too late,
leaving residents with the choice of accepting it
or moving out. And many are moving out.
We
need to consider the consequences of a no/slow
growth policy and of a policy that blocks needed
road improvements. Consider our current
energy crisis which is largely caused by the lack
of power plants and other energy-related
infrastructure. Too little too late we are
paying the price for our lack of investment.
Sooner or later we are going to wake up to the
fact that we have to improve our highway system
as well. And the price will only continue
rising. Meanwhile, other business-friendly
cities like Phoenix are soliciting our
Californian companies to move there. And
these businesses are seriously considering it.
What advantage does Southern California have when
our lights go out and our freeways don't move?
Phoenix, for example, has made massive
investments into its freeway system and has
plenty of power to spare. The possible loss
of those jobs would be devastating to our region
and would cause a real measurable decrease in our
"quality of life."
Back to Top
8. So what can we do?
Politicians talk and interest groups fight.
But traffic gets worse and worse every year.
And nobody is talking about it or doing anything
about it.
We as
citizens can do plenty. Nothing will change
until we stand up and demand that it does.
Write editorials to your local newspapers.
Write letters to the governor, your county
supervisors, and your local state legislators,
congresspersons, and our state senators.
Even write a letter to the President!
But
we have to do more. We have to vote out
those officials who don't respond to our needs.
We can use the California initiative process to
pass new propositions to force these changes when
our government leaders will not act.
As
was mentioned earlier, few people are standing up
for the needs of motorists. In California,
one of the best champions of the needs of
motorists is Senator Tom McClintock (R-San
Fernando Valley), but there are many others.
We need to make our voices heard to our elected
officials, we need to join together to make this
work, and we need to keep up the pressure until
it is done. Together we can succeed.
Please
e-mail us at info@fixtraffic.org for more information or to
join us. You are also welcome to join our
discussion group at:
www.groups.yahoo.com/group/sc_hwys
The
time to solve traffic congestion is now!
|
