LOS ANGELES | Transportation News & Discussion

[Nouvellecosse]

There's nothing wrong with being anti-freeway. In fact, anyone who is pro-clean air, pro-responsible energy usage, pro-fiscal conservatism / responsibility, pro-urban density, pro-neighbourhood connectedness or pro-human health/safety, should also be anti-freeway.

[plutonicpanda]

Originally Posted by SkahHigh

Do people still believe freeway improvements actually improve traffic?

What's wrong with being anti-freeway exactly?

The old induced demand argument... yes widening freeways improves traffic. It is simple math. Every induced demand article whines about traffic not being improved by small freeway sections being widened in a city choked by traffic. Almost never do you see induced demand using examples outside of Bay Area, LA, Atlanta, Houston, Chicago, or NYC as almost every other city doesn't have these problems. Funny how Phoenix freeways flow much better than Portland's and yet theirs are wider. In OKC many freeways were widened years ago that had traffic problems and they have flowed fine since. Your "data" is cherry picked and flawed.

Induced demand articles leave a grocery list of variables unaccounted for and ALWAYS leave out how much worse traffic would have been if the no build alternative was selected. A no build alt. is always required to be explored and thus the impacts of choosing this are clearly laid out. Same thing with Sepulveda Pass no build alt. like traffic would have not been worse today if it was left the same.

I find it hilarious that many posters here pretend to act like widening freeways is alien and no one wants that anymore. Your comment "do people still believe this" is either one of pure ignorance or just keeping your head in the sand purposely. It doesn't change the facts.

Being anti-freeway is fine as you have a right to your opinion. Most people drive and generally support freeway expansions. The vocal minority is unfortunately allowed in far too many cases(especially in CA) to hinder freeway projects that would facilitate 3-5 times as many people traveling through it. What is always left out is traffic will continue to get worse and their health won't get any better.

Yes we need to keep widening and expanding our freeways as our mass transit. It's called growth. You can add fancy terms like induced demand all you want but hopefully the truth is shined upon that crap soon and people are beginning to pick on its nonsense. The real culprit is latent demand and the answer is more infrastructure which along with mass transit includes more lanes and new freeways.

Also, trying to stick back to original point which strangely was left out is money is already largely, disproportionately spent towards mass transit and not freeways. Once again to further that is insanity.

[plutonicpanda]

Originally Posted by Nouvellecosse

There's nothing wrong with being anti-freeway. In fact, anyone who is pro-clean air, pro-responsible energy usage, pro-fiscal conservatism / responsibility, pro-urban density, pro-neighbourhood connectedness or pro-human health/safety, should also be anti-freeway.

Let me offer an alternative for you. I disagree with your statement. I am for all of those things minus pro-fiscal conservatism given certain context. "pro-responsible energy usage" is the typical cheap shot and subjective. So I am pretty much for everything you said yet I am pro-freeway.

"pro-clean air, pro-responsible energy usage" can be solved with innovations in engine technology which will happen faster if more lanes are added to reduce traffic. This is simple mathematics in that x amount of lanes are needed to move x amount of cars per hour. This does in fact not account for the theory cars will appear from nowhere so their drivers can sit in traffic because these new lanes were built. This would account for the latent demand that already exists. More mobility would also benefit everyone else leading to a more prosperous economy which would result in more innovation.

"pro-urban density, pro-neighbourhood connectedness" these things are achievable with new advancements in engineering and responsible freeway building as oppose to old ways of plowing through neighborhoods. Some properties would still be needed and buildings demoed but not anywhere near as many as in the past. Tunnels and higher bridges are good solutions along with below grade freeways using park caps and expanded bridges to better connect adjacent neighborhoods and districts. Any issues with those such as costs or design can be solved with new innovative techniques which freeways are not mutually exclusive of.

"pro-human health/safety" you can make an argument that those who support this should be pro-freeway as grade separation by mode is king in transportation safety. With innovative as historically shown cars are getting safer and safer.

[DenseCityPlease]

Building more freeways? Widening freeways? My goodness, I’m starting to wonder if you’re a time traveler from 1965. We’re still trying to atone for the great damage done by the freeways already built, slowly pulling the urban fabric back together one block at a time.

Bringing things back to 2019 reality, the actual policy question on the table is which freeway(s) will we be tearing down in the coming decades, and in what order?

My personal vote is to ax the Marina Freeway (90) stub and the Glendale Freeway (2) stub south of the 5. Unfortunately the 101 is probably indispensable at this point, but thankfully it’s relatively narrow due to its age, and can eventually be capped through Hollywood and East Hollywood so that we don’t have to spend another 50 years looking at the thing...

[electricron]

The most dense city in the USA is New York City. It has the largest mass transit system in the country if not the world. It has the fewest freeway lanes per population in the country. It also has the worse gridlock, even after implementing anti auto laws; no auto registration without a parking spot, highest parking fees in the country, taking parking spaces away from streets in Manhattan, etc. After all the laws implemented to reduce auto traffic within the last decade, traffic congestion still rose 10-20% in that decade. What happen to make it worse? Uber and Lyft ride sharing, people no longer need tp park to use more automobiles, they just circulate around until called to meet somebody.

I’ll admit I do not have a solution for New York City’s traffic gridlock. Everything they have tried in the past has not stopped the growth of cars on its streets.
http://www.pfnyc.org/reports/GrowthGridlock_4pg.pdf
Maybe New York City, especially Manhattan, has too much density?
Do not rely solely upon higher densities to solve gridlock. Higher densities solves some issues, but it creates other issues.

As long as jobs are removed from from where workers can afford to live, there will be a need for them to travel that distance as cheaply as possible. Time lost in traffic congestion whatever the cause is just as much a monetary hit as time lost waiting for the next bus, next train, next cab, next bus stop, next train station, and next transit transfer.

[accord1999]

Originally Posted by DenseCityPlease

Bringing things back to 2019 reality,

Isn't the catastrophic collapse of transit ridership the 2019 reality of LA?

[Quixote]

Originally Posted by accord1999

Isn't the catastrophic collapse of transit ridership the 2019 reality of LA?

Hyperbole much? Rail ridership has "collapsed" largely due to half of the Blue Line being shut down for infrastructure upgrades.

And last time I checked, ridership also continues to decline in other US cities with more established transit ridership culture.

[accord1999]

Originally Posted by Quixote

Hyperbole much? Rail ridership has "collapsed" largely due to half of the Blue Line being shut down for infrastructure upgrades.

What about Bus Ridership?

Ridership on Los Angeles County buses plummeted 25 percent over the past decade as the region’s Metropolitan Transportation Authority lost about 95 million trips, according to the Los Angeles Times.


It’s the steepest decline among major transit systems in the country,

https://usa.streetsblog.org/2019/07/...eing-la-buses/

And even not considering the Blue Line, other lines like the Red, Purple and Green have continued to show declines.

[Quixote]

^ I'll concede the bus ridership decline as pretty "catastrophic."

But as for rail, Metro Rail averaged 351,914 weekday riders in December 2018 (before the Blue Line closure), which is more or less what it's averaged over the course of the decade that has seen ridership figures consistently fluctuate.

Anyhow, I don't really understand what you're getting at. Angelenos will take transit if Metro actually builds rail lines to places where the people want to go. Look at how the Expo Line met its 2030 ridership projection a year after the SM extension opened.

And to reiterate, other US cities have seen significant decreases in ridership. DC Metrorail's ridership was 595,000 in the second half of 2018, representing a 21% decline from its 2008 peak. I know the APTA says otherwise, but keep in mind that they extremely overestimate NYC Subway ridership at 8 million (it's actually 5.6 million).

[DenseCityPlease]

1) There’s some American provincialism going on here. NYC rail system does not even crack the top 5 globally for ridership.

2) None of the policies noted as “Anti Auto Laws” are actually anti-auto, they’re just a course correction to decades of failed public policy that was rabidly pro-auto. Please read Donald Shoup. Anyway it’s like the saying goes - to those accustomed to privilege, equality feels like oppression.

3) The report you linked to actually recommends instituting a congestion fee a la London as your solution to gridlock. I agree, and this is sound economics. (Incidentally the London-based Economist magazine is a fan). Road space is an underpriced commodity...the answer is to bring the price of driving up to the point where traffic flows freely. In Los Angeles our HOT lanes on the 10 and 110 freeways are a great start at this and are broadly popular with users.

4) Ridership is down (slightly) on red, purple, and green lines because all three have transfer stations with the blue line. As was noted previously the blue line has been shut down half the year. Transit works as a system, not in isolation.

5) LA Metro is in the midst of a full redesign of the bus network for the first time in 30 years. A similar redesign in Houston (Houston!) resulted in ridership increases. Let’s table this one until the new network rolls out.

[electricron]

Originally Posted by DenseCityPlease

1) There’s some American provincialism going on here. NYC rail system does not even crack the top 5 globally for ridership.

2) None of the policies noted as “Anti Auto Laws” are actually anti-auto, they’re just a course correction to decades of failed public policy that was rabidly pro-auto. Please read Donald Shoup. Anyway it’s like the saying goes - to those accustomed to privilege, equality feels like oppression.

3) The report you linked to actually recommends instituting a congestion fee a la London as your solution to gridlock. I agree, and this is sound economics. (Incidentally the London-based Economist magazine is a fan). Road space is an underpriced commodity...the answer is to bring the price of driving up to the point where traffic flows freely. In Los Angeles our HOT lanes on the 10 and 110 freeways are a great start at this and are broadly popular with users.

4) Ridership is down (slightly) on red, purple, and green lines because all three have transfer stations with the blue line. As was noted previously the blue line has been shut down half the year. Transit works as a system, not in isolation.

5) LA Metro is in the midst of a full redesign of the bus network for the first time in 30 years. A similar redesign in Houston (Houston!) resulted in ridership increases. Let’s table this one until the new network rolls out.

Congestion fees are not my solution to traffic congestion, it is New York City's next solution that will probably not work just like all their previous solutions.

Europeans, no matter how much they will deny it, still live in a multi-class social environment. It's reflected in just about every aspect of daily living. Some examples:
(1) Royal families, knighthoods, lords, peers
(2) Games - Anno with 5 classes of people, farmers, workers, artists, engineers, and investors. Ever wonder why it is so popular only in Europe?
(3)Local petro stations within the UK publicly advertise cheaper petro prices for local customers - charging higher petro prices for tourists. Their local economy generates 30-40% of its GNP from tourists, it is okay to charge tourists more than they charge locals.
In America we have tourist based taxes bases on services provided, taxes locals pay as well using that service, but our local businesses do not charge customers differently. America does not have a multiple class society based upon family lineage, what we have is the haves vs the have nots. Even so, not everyone judges others by how rich they are.

There are probably many more examples of Europe's class chase system, the point is they can charge congestion taxes without too much kickback from the masses. It'll be interesting to see how New Yorkers react to the same tax.

As I wrote before, I do not have a solution.

As long as jobs are in one location and homes are in another, workers will need to commute. Workers are just like everything and everyone else, they are going to pick the cheapest solution that meets their needs in housing, transportation, food, medicines, entertainment, etc. Everyone places a value on everything. That's why the City of New York has been, is, and will be taxing all forms of transportation in every way possible. Manhatten is just too dense. Wait a while and they will have to start taxing pedestrians because their sidewalks are too congested.

[Rational Plan3]

Originally Posted by electricron

Congestion fees are not my solution to traffic congestion, it is New York City's next solution that will probably not work just like all their previous solutions.

Europeans, no matter how much they will deny it, still live in a multi-class social environment. It's reflected in just about every aspect of daily living. Some examples:
(1) Royal families, knighthoods, lords, peers
(2) Games - Anno with 5 classes of people, farmers, workers, artists, engineers, and investors. Ever wonder why it is so popular only in Europe?
(3)Local petro stations within the UK publicly advertise cheaper petro prices for local customers - charging higher petro prices for tourists. Their local economy generates 30-40% of its GNP from tourists, it is okay to charge tourists more than they charge locals.
In America we have tourist based taxes bases on services provided, taxes locals pay as well using that service, but our local businesses do not charge customers differently. America does not have a multiple class society based upon family lineage, what we have is the haves vs the have nots. Even so, not everyone judges others by how rich they are.

There are probably many more examples of Europe's class chase system, the point is they can charge congestion taxes without too much kickback from the masses. It'll be interesting to see how New Yorkers react to the same tax.

As I wrote before, I do not have a solution.

As long as jobs are in one location and homes are in another, workers will need to commute. Workers are just like everything and everyone else, they are going to pick the cheapest solution that meets their needs in housing, transportation, food, medicines, entertainment, etc. Everyone places a value on everything. That's why the City of New York has been, is, and will be taxing all forms of transportation in every way possible. Manhatten is just too dense. Wait a while and they will have to start taxing pedestrians because their sidewalks are too congested.

What are you smoking? What cheaper petrol prices for locals? There are no different prices charged at the pumps in the UK. There has been great argument about the congestion charge and at the moment it is limited to the Central Activity Zone where 95% workers arrive by transit or walking or cycling. It really needs to pushed out by another two or three miles, but that moves it out to a couple million extra people many of them not part of the global super rich of the inner core. The politics on that would be brave.

You also over sell the class aspect. While the US is not as class obsessed as the UK, it most certainly does have a class system, it's belief in that it is a pure meritocracy blinds itself to it's reality.

[plutonicpanda]

Originally Posted by DenseCityPlease

Building more freeways? Widening freeways? My goodness, I’m starting to wonder if you’re a time traveler from 1965. We’re still trying to atone for the great damage done by the freeways already built, slowly pulling the urban fabric back together one block at a time.

Bringing things back to 2019 reality, the actual policy question on the table is which freeway(s) will we be tearing down in the coming decades, and in what order?

My personal vote is to ax the Marina Freeway (90) stub and the Glendale Freeway (2) stub south of the 5. Unfortunately the 101 is probably indispensable at this point, but thankfully it’s relatively narrow due to its age, and can eventually be capped through Hollywood and East Hollywood so that we don’t have to spend another 50 years looking at the thing...

Once again, pretending that freeways are a relic of the past won't change things and ignorance doesn't help your cause. If you truly are anti-freeway you would be wise to understand.

Keeping things in reality, which is 2019, yes, I agree with building more freeways and widening existing ones. Many, many others do as well.

Very few freeways are considered for demolition and that ridiculous article that comes out yearly is malarkey. A vast majority of citizens in Syracuse are against I-81 removal. The only ones removes recently were just stubs.

You conveniently, and seemingly, only read what you wanted out of my post which is the typical knee jerk reaction from urbanists to pro-freeway statements. I gave many ways to build freeways more responsibly than the past.

By all means, have fun holding your breath for these freeway demolitions you think is going to happen.

[plutonicpanda]

Originally Posted by accord1999

Isn't the catastrophic collapse of transit ridership the 2019 reality of LA?

+1

And what about the hundreds of freeways being built and/or widened across the US? But don't let facts get in the way of making asinine statements like "the 1960's called?" That seems to be the only response the anti-freeway crowd on this forum can give. I've been making pro-freeway arguments for about a decade, since the time I really started researching and getting into transportation planning. I've noticed many weak arguments throughout that time and the most recent one is the "are you a time traveler." They are amusing, I'll give it that.

Originally Posted by Quixote

Hyperbole much? Rail ridership has "collapsed" largely due to half of the Blue Line being shut down for infrastructure upgrades.

Rail ridership was declining years before the blue line closed.

[plutonicpanda]

Originally Posted by DenseCityPlease

1) There’s some American provincialism going on here. NYC rail system does not even crack the top 5 globally for ridership.

So we should compare our cities to Europe or Asia? Or South America if we want BRT? In what world is that apples to apples?

Originally Posted by DenseCityPlease

2) None of the policies noted as “Anti Auto Laws” are actually anti-auto, they’re just a course correction to decades of failed public policy that was rabidly pro-auto. Please read Donald Shoup. Anyway it’s like the saying goes - to those accustomed to privilege, equality feels like oppression.

This is completely false. Those policies noted are absolutely anti-auto. NYC keeps removing lanes for bus and bike lanes, building more transit, and yet travel times keep falling. Gridlock is the worse in Manhattan. There is report after report showing this.

Originally Posted by DenseCityPlease

3) The report you linked to actually recommends instituting a congestion fee a la London as your solution to gridlock. I agree, and this is sound economics. (Incidentally the London-based Economist magazine is a fan). Road space is an underpriced commodity...the answer is to bring the price of driving up to the point where traffic flows freely. In Los Angeles our HOT lanes on the 10 and 110 freeways are a great start at this and are broadly popular with users.

Adding tolled lanes for the option of use is not remotely comparable to congestion pricing which forces a toll no matter what. Is your argument against that going to be "well they can take trains or bikes..." London congestion pricing hasn't worked either. They now have to come up with a makeshift 'solution' called the Stockholm Solution. How much longer until that fails and another makeshift solution is needed?

Originally Posted by DenseCityPlease

4) Ridership is down (slightly) on red, purple, and green lines because all three have transfer stations with the blue line. As was noted previously the blue line has been shut down half the year. Transit works as a system, not in isolation.

Ridership was down before any closures were made to the blue lines.

Originally Posted by DenseCityPlease

5) LA Metro is in the midst of a full redesign of the bus network for the first time in 30 years. A similar redesign in Houston (Houston!) resulted in ridership increases. Let’s table this one until the new network rolls out.

I am sure this is something we can agree on. I am happy to hear about Houston and I hope the same happens in LA. Problem is with me I am not confident Metro is going to make any meaningful changes. I've read the reports so far and everything proposed is modest at best and doesn't implement any real changes other than a few vague statements like down the line we eye more bus only lanes which I am against that anyways.

[jmecklenborg]

Loose credit is enabling many poor people to buy cars who couldn't get one before. It's also enabling formerly 1-car couples to buy a second car.

The quality of lack of quality of transit has nothing to do with that.

Meanwhile, Uber/Lyft are biting into both choice transit riders and low-wage workers who pay the fee to travel to or from low-paying jobs by car, especially off-peak trips.

A recession of any significance is going to tighten car lending and put both Uber and Lyft out of business. Each are hemorrhaging money during the "good times", so it's lights out when their ridership starts declining and investors won't buy their stock issues or debt.

[Quixote]

Originally Posted by plutonicpanda

Rail ridership was declining years before the blue line closed.

Metro Rail average weekday ridership over the last 10 years:

2009--287,921
2010--297,802
2011--308,964
2012--342,640
2013--363,092
2014--351,833
2015--334,432
2016--348,505
2017--359,016
2018--344,176

http://isotp.metro.net/MetroRidership/IndexRail.aspx

After peaking in 2013, ridership declined for two consecutive years and then increased for two consecutive years--there's really no trend other than fluctuation. How about the fact that Metro had its second highest calendar year ridership ever in 2017? Or that the rail extensions opened since 2009 (Gold Line to East LA and Azusa, Expo Line to Santa Monica) have yielded a nearly 20% increase in ridership?

Blue Line improvements (supposed to shave 10 minutes off the end-to-end travel time), Crenshaw Line in 2020, Regional Connector in 2022, and LAX people mover and Purple Line extension phase one in 2023, expect to see steady increases.

[WrightCONCEPT]

Originally Posted by Quixote

^ But Metro's primary responsibility is building and operating public transportation services in LA County, and they actually focused on building a system that takes people where they want to go and not do stupid things like cutting headways to 20 minutes past 8:00 (!), they won't have to worry about large declines in ridership. Metro's really good at self-sabotage.

I'm just sick of people complaining and clamoring for results (traffic, smog, expensive housing, homeless), but aren't actually willing to do what it takes to realize said results.

Yes it is and part of that comes from a fundamental understanding of how the Metro Board needs to look at these operational priorities to the system, you have relatively new board members who don't quite get it yet. So its not just the building of the system but the Operations end of the spectrum that I feel they really need to heed and get back to basics around.

[WrightCONCEPT]

Originally Posted by jmecklenborg

Loose credit is enabling many poor people to buy cars who couldn't get one before. It's also enabling formerly 1-car couples to buy a second car.

The quality of lack of quality of transit has nothing to do with that.

Meanwhile, Uber/Lyft are biting into both choice transit riders and low-wage workers who pay the fee to travel to or from low-paying jobs by car, especially off-peak trips.

A recession of any significance is going to tighten car lending and put both Uber and Lyft out of business. Each are hemorrhaging money during the "good times", so it's lights out when their ridership starts declining and investors won't buy their stock issues or debt.

That is an excellent point and why public transit systems need to keep to good customer service and being reliable and on schedule with good frequencies will be key when the next recession hits, because these Uber and Lyfts will have more surge pricing that will knock out itself out because of scarcity. Or they may smarten up and become a real fixed route jitney service.

[plutonicpanda]

Originally Posted by Quixote

Metro Rail average weekday ridership over the last 10 years:

2009--287,921
2010--297,802
2011--308,964
2012--342,640
2013--363,092
2014--351,833
2015--334,432
2016--348,505
2017--359,016
2018--344,176

http://isotp.metro.net/MetroRidership/IndexRail.aspx

After peaking in 2013, ridership declined for two consecutive years and then increased for two consecutive years--there's really no trend other than fluctuation. How about the fact that Metro had its second highest calendar year ridership ever in 2017? Or that the rail extensions opened since 2009 (Gold Line to East LA and Azusa, Expo Line to Santa Monica) have yielded a nearly 20% increase in ridership?

Blue Line improvements (supposed to shave 10 minutes off the end-to-end travel time), Crenshaw Line in 2020, Regional Connector in 2022, and LAX people mover and Purple Line extension phase one in 2023, expect to see steady increases.

Right but the notion set forth a few posts back was ridership decreased only because of the Blue Line closures. While I have no doubt that affected ridership, that is a small blip in the fluctuations of ridership ups and downs. Metrolink just posted record ridership numbers which is great.