Wednesday, July 23rd, 2008
The San Diego Union Tribune reported this week that after conducting an analysis of Caltrans data, they’ve determined that traffic in San Diego County is down for the first time ever. Looking at current traffic data compared to the same time period last year, the U-T found that weekday traffic in June decreased from between 3.3% and 9.1%, depending on the freeway. Even more dramatic is the decrease in weekend traffic, which has ranged from 5.2% to 11.9%. This decrease in traffic is, of course, being attributed to the high price of gasoline and the slowing economy.
While it is great that there is less traffic on the roads, it is unfortunate that the primary alternative to not driving is to stay at home, or close to home. While the San Diego Trolley has had a 6.8% growth in ridership over the past year, it is not a practical alternative for most residents. In San Diego, as is the case in most U.S. cities, there are very limited means of public transit. Yes, it is good news that people are driving less and the roads are less crowded, but it is too bad that there isn’t a meaningful rail alternative to fill that void.
Photo credit.
Sphere: Related Content
Posted in Greenhouse Gas Emissions, Lifestyle, Los Angeles, Transportation | No Comments »
Friday, May 30th, 2008
The controversial Orange County toll road proposal, intended to relieve traffic on the gridlocked Interstate 5, is being revisited. The ruling of the California Coastal Commission, rejecting the proposal back in February, is being appealed to the U.S. Secretary of Commerce. The Secretary has the authority to overrule the Coastal Commission because the route at issue for the proposed toll road runs through Camp Pendleton Marine Corps base and is leased to the state.
The appeal, launched by the Transportation Corridor Agencies, is being supported by eight local Congressmen, Gary Miller (R-Diamond Bar), Ken Calvert (R-Corona), John Campbell (R-Irvine), Ed Royce (R-Fullerton), Dana Rohrabacher (R-Huntington Beach), Darrell Issa (R-Vista), Duncan Hunter (R-Alpine) and Elton Gallegly (R-Simi Valley).
It will be interesting to see how this conflict is resolved. The situation typifies the conflict between creating more efficient roadways and protecting the environment. Clearly the resolution of these types of conflicts must be a balancing act. Ideally, “all or nothing” solutions can be avoided.
Photo credit.
Sphere: Related Content
Posted in Los Angeles, Politics, Transportation | No Comments »
Monday, April 28th, 2008
The Bottleneck blog has a couple recent posts regarding a proposal in Santa Monica to suspend commercial development in the city, in order to deal with the growing traffic mess. If passed by voters, the measure would limit commercial development to 75,000 square feet of floor area per calendar year.
Santa Monica Chamber of Commerce President Tom Larmore, who opposes the ban, states, “This goes far beyond office development. The commercial development definition includes a whole raft of things.” Some of the unintended consequences may include preventing new hotel developments (which do not substantially increase traffic) and medical facility expansions.
While Santa Monica traffic is a major quality of life issue, an outright ban on new development may not be the best solution. Yes, unchecked commercial growth without parallel mass transit investment has been a major cause of the congestion problems. However, an outright ban is not going to solve the problem. The solution is, and always has been, to have smart growth—development coupled with intelligent transit and planning solutions, including things like public rails, efficient traffic signal management, mixed use buildings, and congestion pricing. If this ban is just a temporary solution which focuses the city’s attention on the real needs (mass transit), then it might not be such a bad thing. But if it is just an excuse to avoid dealing with the real issue of alternative transit and smart planning, then it will likely be counterproductive.
Photo credit.
Sphere: Related Content
Posted in Los Angeles, Transportation | No Comments »
Tuesday, April 1st, 2008
Living in Los Angeles, we’ve kept a close eye on New York City Mayor Bloomberg’s plan to enact congestion pricing in Manhattan. This proposal got another boost yesterday when the city council approved a measure urging the State Legislature to adopt the plan.
As we noted in a previous post, some of the highlights of the plan include: charging all drivers entering Manhattan below 60th Street an $8 fee between the hours of 6 a.m. to 6 p.m., requiring the revenue (estimated at nearly half a billion a year) to be reinvested into mass transit, and providing cost breaks for the poor.
The only hurdle left is State Legislature approval, which if given, will allow congestion pricing in Manhattan to begin as early as March 31, 2009.
It is our feeling that this system will substantially increase the quality of life in New York City. Of course, congestion pricing is somewhat controversial because it takes a public resource (roadways) and charges a fee for their use. Fortunately, New Yorkers are used to paying for roadway access. (Just work backwards from the West Coast term “freeway.”) Therefore, imposing another toll on New York drivers would not be an unnatural concept.
As for the argument that it unfairly discriminates against the poor, who have less money to spend on tolls, the answer to this criticism is contained within the proposal itself. By reinvesting the revenue generated into mass transit, poor people (who rely more heavily on mass transit than the rich) should reap much of the benefit.
In attempting to apply congestion pricing to a city like Los Angeles, these two points, unfortunately will not be quite as applicable. First, most California drivers have never paid a cent for roadway access (aside from a handful of bridges and private roads). Convincing them to pay for something that has been, up to that point, completely free, will be difficult.
Second, unlike New York, Los Angeles has a horrendous public transit system. The way to reinvest any revenues from congestion pricing is not nearly as clear as in New York, which has a fully developed and integrated public rail (and bus) system. Nonetheless, as we noted recently, mass transit in LA is possible (and once was amazing), so maybe the windfall revenue from congestion pricing would be the catalyst needed to finally get a real solution implemented.
Photo credit.
Sphere: Related Content
Posted in General, Governmental Regulations, Greenhouse Gas Emissions, Los Angeles, New York, Transportation | No Comments »
Thursday, March 27th, 2008
Just reading this post over at metroriderla.com made us realize what could have been in LA, had public rail developed continued to develop here like it did in other cities, such as New York (or even the Bay Area). The post links to an amazing looking map of a proposed LA rail system by the year 2030, by transit planner Steve Boland.
Given our recent post on the proposed California high speed rail system, which Boland also has a map of, as well as our common theme and interest in mass transit, we found this map fascinating. However, as exciting as it is to think of the prospect of living in a city like LA, where easy and clean train rides would replace excruciatingly slow and dirty traffic jams, we are still pessimistic. Everyone agrees that there is a problem, but without leadership that can direct the population’s dissatisfaction towards a common goal, there is unlikely to be a comprehensive solution. Things work just well enough here that an alternative is only highly desired, instead of absolutely necessary. Until, and unless, there is no other choice, effective leadership will be our only hope.
Another link to map.
Sphere: Related Content
Posted in General, Governmental Behavior, Greenhouse Gas Emissions, Los Angeles, Politics, Transportation | 2 Comments »
Thursday, January 31st, 2008
Zach Behrens over at laist.com is reporting that the Los Angeles MTA, in addressing the parking lot that has become that city’s westside, has issued 19 alternative public transportation solutions for the “subway to the sea”. Incredibly, one of those “solutions” does not even include a subway, but rather the addition of another express bus. For a city that is remembered for its currently unbearable traffic and smog and is forgotten for its previously illustrious public railways, one would think that building (rebuilding?) the city’s rail system would be a no-brainer. This isn’t to say that there aren’t good intentions, which there clearly are, it is just that this problem has existed for so long (and continues to get worse), that it is time for real action not just a bunch of “alternatives”.
Sphere: Related Content
Posted in Transportation | No Comments »
