LOS ANGELES | Transportation News & Discussion

[202_Cyclist]

More freeways won't end L.A.'s traffic woes
Use transportation money to promote alternatives to more highways.


Spending precious resources on highway projects will only perpetuate Angelenos' paralysis in gridlock. Traffic on the southbound lanes of the 110 freeway is shown above. (Image courtesy of the LA Times)

By Joel R. Reynolds
August 8, 2011
Los Angeles Times -- Op-ed


"There are two things on which most Southern Californians enthusiastically agree: Vin Scully should announce Dodger baseball forever, and something needs to be done about the traffic.

Sadly, there's nothing we can do to make Scully immortal. But we can definitely do something about the traffic.

First, we can stop spending time and scarce transportation funding on planning, designing and permitting obsolete highway projects that will only perpetuate our paralysis. Traffic studies have long established that we can't just pave our way out of congestion. We've tried that approach for 50 years, and gridlock is where it's gotten us..."

http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/...,5231462.story

[ardecila]

^^ Abandoning freeway spending entirely is stupid and counterproductive. Transportation is not all about commutes - large cities also rely heavily on goods movement as a vital part of the economy and as a underpinning for those cities' high quality of life. As such, transit is not a universal solution. Neither is freight rail - nobody delivers bread to a grocery store from a flatcar. Ultimately, highways will need to be a part of the solution.

I agree that the expansion of general-purpose lanes needs to stop, but that doesn't mean we should stop making smart investments in highway systems. Freeways should cease being free. If they need to be expanded, let them be expanded - but charge a toll. Encourage more efficient use of highway capacity - that's why there are HOV lanes. Expand highways to allow for bus lanes for regional bus service.

[Rail Claimore]

Originally Posted by ardecila

^^ Abandoning freeway spending entirely is stupid and counterproductive. Transportation is not all about commutes - large cities also rely heavily on goods movement as a vital part of the economy and as a underpinning for those cities' high quality of life. As such, transit is not a universal solution. Neither is freight rail - nobody delivers bread to a grocery store from a flatcar. Ultimately, highways will need to be a part of the solution.

I agree that the expansion of general-purpose lanes needs to stop, but that doesn't mean we should stop making smart investments in highway systems. Freeways should cease being free. If they need to be expanded, let them be expanded - but charge a toll. Encourage more efficient use of highway capacity - that's why there are HOV lanes. Expand highways to allow for bus lanes for regional bus service.

Agreed. To many of these "build rail instead of more highways" articles are written by people who don't seem to understand that freight transportation is a huge part of the transportation equation as well.

[LosAngelesDreamin]

LAX needs a people mover =D I rode that at Chicago's O'hare International Airport... it was so much fun... and they had trains that connected straight to the city. LA needs something like that... rather than having to hop on this train and then hop on that train and then hop on this shuttle... its a big mess.

And I prefer HRT, not really a big fan of LRT

[jg6544]

Originally Posted by Rail Claimore

Agreed. To many of these "build rail instead of more highways" articles are written by people who don't seem to understand that freight transportation is a huge part of the transportation equation as well.

Part of the problem with freeways is that they're clogged with trucks hauling freight that we might haul more efficiently by rail.

[202_Cyclist]

Rail_Claimore:

Agreed. To many of these "build rail instead of more highways" articles are written by people who don't seem to understand that freight transportation is a huge part of the transportation equation as well.

I want LA's 30/10 Plan to be successful. I want to see the subway to the sea built and I want to see high speed rail built in California but there will still be a need for highways and roads. What we need to do, however, is make sure the limited highway capacity is used as efficiently as possible through congestion pricing that encourages people to make discretionary trips at less congested times and encourages carpooling and transit ridership. I also realize that many people will continue to drive, but passenger vehicles should be as fuel efficient as possible, with hybrid and electric vehicles, so we don't continue to spend $300B per year, every single year on foreign oil, as well as continue to cook the planet. The President's raising CAFE standards to 54.5 miles by 2025 is an excellent policy that will help us accomplish this.

Finally, highways will continue to be essential to freight movement, although personally, I would like to see everything possible done to encourage freight movement by rail and inland waterways and short-sea shipping-- perhaps our most underutilized infrastructure asset. As with passenger vehicles, movement of freight by truck should be as fuel efficient as possible. Increasing the fuel efficiency of commercial vehicles and trucks that get 6-10 mpg is a way to save hundreds of millions of barrels of oil each year.

Heavy Trucks To Be Subject To New Rules For Mileage
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/08/10/sc...h/10truck.html

[LAofAnaheim]

Originally Posted by 202_Cyclist

Rail_Claimore:


I want LA's 30/10 Plan to be successful. I want to see the subway to the sea built and I want to see high speed rail built in California but there will still be a need for highways and roads. What we need to do, however, is make sure the limited highway capacity is used as efficiently as possible through congestion pricing that encourages people to make discretionary trips at less congested times and encourages carpooling and transit ridership. I also realize that many people will continue to drive, but passenger vehicles should be as fuel efficient as possible, with hybrid and electric vehicles, so we don't continue to spend $300B per year, every single year on foreign oil, as well as continue to cook the planet. The President's raising CAFE standards to 54.5 miles by 2025 is an excellent policy that will help us accomplish this.

The President raising the standards is bad news! Why? Gas tax collections will significantly decrease = less infrastructure spending. We haven't raised the gas tax since 1993 and the purchasing power is less today than it was previously due to higher fuel efficient cars. We need to borrow from the General Fund in order to make up the shortfall.

Raising gas mileage = less gas tax = cheaper to drive = more people drive over using public transit = demand for greater auto infrastructure development = larger roads, smaller sidewalks = bus/rail service reductions = suburban quality of life

Yes, it's a circle. How do you get more people to ride transit if driving is way too convenient and cheap?

[JDRCRASH]

Perris Valley Metrolink Line approved:

http://ridinginriverside.blogspot.co...-approved.html

[202_Cyclist]

LAofAnaheim:

The President raising the standards is bad news! Why? Gas tax collections will significantly decrease = less infrastructure spending. We haven't raised the gas tax since 1993 and the purchasing power is less today than it was previously due to higher fuel efficient cars. We need to borrow from the General Fund in order to make up the shortfall.

Using less oil, with less pollution, less emissions, and fewer dollars every year going to petro-dictators hostile to the US isn't bad news. The way we fund transportation is broken and perhaps shouldn't be tied to the gas tax, where greater efficiency works against generating more revenue for transit and repairing our roads. Perhaps replacing the gas tax with a vehicle miles traveled tax would help. Congestion pricing has a role in both limiting traffic on our scarce highway lanes and, secondly, generating revenue. As I said, however, not spending $300B every single year on foreign oil and keeping that money here in the US is not bad news.

[pesto]

The obvious answer is to repeal the gas tax. It saves adminsitrative and collection issues as well. If there is a desire to spend more money on transit, highways or whatever, run the funding through the income tax system like most other expenses and let it be subject to the usual debate.

Just as a side note, spending on more expensive fuels in the US instead of cheaper fuels abroad hurts the US over time. This was Ricardo's law of comparative advantage, which has not been questioned for 200 years (because it's true).

Borrowing from the general fund should be a criminal offense.

[Illithid Dude]

Originally Posted by JDRCRASH

Perris Valley Metrolink Line approved:

http://ridinginriverside.blogspot.co...-approved.html

Nice! The MetroLink is truly the most unappreciated of Los Angeles's transit systems.

[Rail Claimore]

Originally Posted by jg6544

Part of the problem with freeways is that they're clogged with trucks hauling freight that we might haul more efficiently by rail.

Except that railroads already handle a disproportionate share of our freight, and the vast majority of the freight that goes coast to coast. Highways are necessary to get freight from rail yards to its final destination, and from the manufacturers to the consumers.

http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/environment/.../chapter02.cfm

[ardecila]

Originally Posted by pesto

The obvious answer is to repeal the gas tax. It saves adminsitrative and collection issues as well. If there is a desire to spend more money on transit, highways or whatever, run the funding through the income tax system like most other expenses and let it be subject to the usual debate.

Just as a side note, spending on more expensive fuels in the US instead of cheaper fuels abroad hurts the US over time. This was Ricardo's law of comparative advantage, which has not been questioned for 200 years (because it's true).

Borrowing from the general fund should be a criminal offense.

I was gonna make a point, but then my logic contradicted itself.

Gas taxes don't make a whole lot of sense as a sustainable funding mechanism in an era when virtually everybody drives, and the revenue is spent on more than just roads. The initial idea (that the small group of elite auto owners would pay the cost of the expensive new roads they themselves were demanding) no longer makes sense.

Unfortunately, any alternative scheme just messes with the incentives. Eliminating the gas tax makes gas cheaper and increases the attractiveness of driving while lowering the incentive to purchase more fuel-efficient cars. A VMT tax has serious privacy implications, even assuming the government can find a viable and cost-effective way to assess and collect it.

Funding transportation out of the general fund means that transportation becomes even more subject to cuts during lean times, while a dedicated revenue source would maintain spending at a constant level.

-----

It would be interesting to set up a transit system to charge much higher rates (3x-4x current fares) to people who also own a vehicle. People without a vehicle could apply for a reduced fare card, regardless of income, while car owners and anybody without the card would pay the much higher rate. This would discourage car ownership in cities without putting the burden of transit funding on rural populations who don't use transit.

Unfortunately, this also comes with an incentive darkside - it discourages transit use in cities for those who do own cars. It would be successful only in a major city where people of all classes understand the value of transit service, and where living car-free is a viable option. I suppose you could exempt scooters and certain compact cars from consideration as a stop-gap measure until the increased revenue permits the construction of a decent transit network.

[mitchbart]

Car Sharing in LA seems to be far behind other Western US Cities. I know Zipcar purchased Flexcar and abandoned the LA Market except its UCLA and USC Services.

Zipcar has been working with LADOT and have been adding some spots back in on city streets esp. in Hollywood near the Red Line stations which have no dedicated parking. There is also LAX CarShare which seems to be underfunded and has some downtown spots.

What should LA Metro role be in carsharing and why don't they work with car share companies to have cars in LA MetroRail station parking lots as in other cities?

What about other Cities in the urbanized central LA County such as Santa Monica, West Hollywood, Glendale. Burbank and Pasadena, what should their role be?

What about TOD projects along new and existing MetroRail routes -should they include car sharing?

Do people here have thoughts and comments on this topic?

Mitch Bart

[Bootstrap Bill]

Originally Posted by JDRCRASH

Perris Valley Metrolink Line approved:

http://ridinginriverside.blogspot.co...-approved.html

I heard it might not start up until 2014.

I wonder if they could possibly run a simulator bus line until the extension is completed. The existing bus service is pretty bad.

[LAofAnaheim]

The Final Environmental Impact Report has been released for the Crenshaw Line - http://www.metro.net/projects/crensh...haw-feis-feir/

Note: Metro plans to go fully underground north of 48th street and end at Expo/Crenshaw; which the intention to take the Crenshaw Line further north. Having an at-grade station at Expo/Crenshaw would have meant a re-built of the Expo/Crenshaw stop would have been necessary to take the Crenshaw Line north of Expo; this eliminates the guessing. Metro WILL take the Crenshaw Line north one day!

[Quixote]

^ Great news. The northern extension was a foregone conclusion; the route it will take is still very much up for discussion. With the San Vicente median being converted into a linear pocket park, a subway seems very likely.

[Quixote]

As of July 2011, average weekday ridership on Metro Rail is at an all-time high...

Red/Purple Lines -- 171,163
Blue Line -- 90,109
Green Line -- 45,259
Gold Line -- 42,900

Total -- 349,432

http://www.metro.net/news/pages/ridership-statistics/

[LosAngelesSportsFan]

Riding the red line tonight all the way to NoHo and i was thinking about what stations should have been built from the get go but were glanced over.

If i could i would add the following three stations. i routinely ride the Red, Purple and Gold Lines...

1) Hollywood Bowl (Red)
2) Colorado Blvd, Pasadena (Gold)
3) City West, Downtown (Red, Purple)

i know it costs lots of money to add a station box once a line is up, but after 30/10 and in the near future, i would hope to see these three added.

[Quixote]

^ The Gold Line's Memorial Park station is only 2 blocks away from Colorado.

A Hollywood Bowl station is being considered for the northern Crenshaw extension.