It's a leap day, meaning it's the end of the month, meaning it is time for highway headlines. So here are your headlines.
https://cahighways.org/wordpress/?p=16744
As always: Read, set, discuss.
Regarding 41, the detour posted doesn't make any sense. The detour route if followed traffic way the hell west on 198 to I-5 near Harris Ranch. Detouring down Avenal Cutoff Road and 269 only adds about 10 minutes to the regular alignment of 41. I've asked Caltrans D6 a couple times on social media for an explanation for the posted detour but haven't gotten a response.
I'd be in favor of the tunnel under the redwoods. I've been stuck on that section before due to sudden rock slides. Seems "easier" than the other total rebuild option.
All this analysis about how freeways shouldn't be widened because the extra traffic will produce more pollution seems utterly incompatible with the policy of forcing everyone to drive electric cars in the future. Since this seems to be motivated by an irrational animus toward personal transportation, more than concern for the climate, I wonder what argument they'll concoct against freeway widening when the vehicles are no longer polluting.
Quote from: Quillz on March 01, 2024, 02:19:53 AM
I'd be in favor of the tunnel under the redwoods. I've been stuck on that section before due to sudden rock slides. Seems "easier" than the other total rebuild option.
Sanity would suggest that they should just cut a new road through a better-behaved part of the landscape, and return the existing alignment to nature. Old growth redwoods are worth preserving, but not every last one of them. If they had to cut down 0.1% of them to make room for a new highway, that would hardly be a crime against nature. Also, part of the reason for having a road through them is so that people can admire them. You can't do that from inside a tunnel.
Quote from: pderocco on March 01, 2024, 02:30:05 AM
All this analysis about how freeways shouldn't be widened because the extra traffic will produce more pollution seems utterly incompatible with the policy of forcing everyone to drive electric cars in the future. Since this seems to be motivated by an irrational animus toward personal transportation, more than concern for the climate, I wonder what argument they'll concoct against freeway widening when the vehicles are no longer polluting.
How am I being forced to drive an electric car, either now or some arbitrary point in the future?
Quote from: pderocco on March 01, 2024, 02:34:18 AM
Quote from: Quillz on March 01, 2024, 02:19:53 AM
I'd be in favor of the tunnel under the redwoods. I've been stuck on that section before due to sudden rock slides. Seems "easier" than the other total rebuild option.
Sanity would suggest that they should just cut a new road through a better-behaved part of the landscape, and return the existing alignment to nature. Old growth redwoods are worth preserving, but not every last one of them. If they had to cut down 0.1% of them to make room for a new highway, that would hardly be a crime against nature. Also, part of the reason for having a road through them is so that people can admire them. You can't do that from inside a tunnel.
If this specific section in question is where I'm thinking, there are no redwoods in the immediate area. The major groves would be to the south (Prairie Creek) and to the northeast (Jed Smith). So while this area is scenic, it is mainly for offering some ocean views, as opposed to redwoods. Although the section I'm thinking of is about 10 miles south of Crescent City, this may not be the troublesome part (although it sure seems like it).
Quote from: Quillz on March 01, 2024, 03:17:10 AM
Quote from: pderocco on March 01, 2024, 02:30:05 AM
All this analysis about how freeways shouldn't be widened because the extra traffic will produce more pollution seems utterly incompatible with the policy of forcing everyone to drive electric cars in the future. Since this seems to be motivated by an irrational animus toward personal transportation, more than concern for the climate, I wonder what argument they'll concoct against freeway widening when the vehicles are no longer polluting.
How am I being forced to drive an electric car, either now or some arbitrary point in the future?
By laws that forbid the selling of new non-electric cars after such-and-such a date, some single-digit number of years from now. Many climate-obsessed politicians, here in California, Washington, Europe, and throughout Western Civilization, are trying to impose these timetables. Some will succeed, although I think their eventual contact with technological and political reality will be their undoing. But part of my point is that the Venn diagram of the people opposed to widening freeways and people opposed to selling internal combustion vehicles have a large overlap, and it will be interesting to see how they try to resolve the contradiction.
Well, I'll just buy my cars in Wyoming, which is doing the exact inverse.
There are numerous laws that are usually "x will happen by y," and indeed history has shown either the time table gets extended, or the laws are just heavily amended or not really enforced. In practice, both the California and Wyoming laws will probably have the same fates of being more political grandstanding than reality. But time will tell.
the streetblogs post against I-710 improvements is against the improvements for the sake of being against them.
Many interchanges listed for a rebuild are outdated cloverleaf interchanges that needs to be redesigned for safety reasons
Quote from: SeriesE on March 01, 2024, 04:25:38 AM
the streetblogs post against I-710 improvements is against the improvements for the sake of being against them.
Many interchanges listed for a rebuild are outdated cloverleaf interchanges that needs to be redesigned for safety reasons
My Facebook feed is nothing but contradictions. They complain about bike lanes and how people should just be driving instead. Then a day or two later, they'll complain how they are on their bike and almost got run over due to lack of bike lanes.
But of course, people on Facebook are all qualified engineers who understand the ins and outs of traffic flow and design.
Quote from: Quillz on March 01, 2024, 03:54:05 AM
Well, I'll just buy my cars in Wyoming, which is doing the exact inverse.
There are numerous laws that are usually "x will happen by y," and indeed history has shown either the time table gets extended, or the laws are just heavily amended or not really enforced. In practice, both the California and Wyoming laws will probably have the same fates of being more political grandstanding than reality. But time will tell.
Thing is though, California has the EPA waiver and has taken measures in the past which have affected the automotive industry. I still recall car commercials with the tagline "California emissions compliant" being a somewhat common thing when I was growing up in the 1980s. I tend to view the PHEV mandate as something similar. Granted I don't think the automotive market will be able to facilitate CARB's PHEV goals by 2035 and it will get delayed.
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on March 01, 2024, 09:31:57 AM
I still recall car commercials with the tagline "California emissions compliant" being a somewhat common thing when I was growing up in the 1980s.
For me growing up, cars featured on
The Price Is Right in the 1980s and much of the 1990s were often touted as having "California Emission". Never knew what that was until much later in life.
QuoteBut its contentious approval by the California Transportation Commission last month exposed a deepening rift in the state between its climate goals and the list of freeway widening projects that some say are gliding through without scrutiny and threatening the health of the people who live near them
These people are stupid then because what freeway widening project has been passed without scrutiny? How many freeway expansions have been canceled? This is ridiculous. No they're not stupid they know exactly what they're doing they just don't want to see a single freeway improvement project so they're gaslighting.
Oh and of course what would this thread be without a post from anti freeway rhetoric from streetsblogs' one and only Joe Linton:
QuoteBut wait, there's some lipstick on this pig! In truth, it's not as bad as the mega-widening that Metro was hell-bent on a couple years ago, but there's still harmful freeway widening.
At the end of the day the state needs leaders who will forgo whatever "environmental" rules that cause every reporter on the issue and their dog to shit their panties about freeways being widened. It's nice to see updates on California roadways but why continue to post the sam goddamn fucking article 5 times, every month, that says the same shit? Freeway x is being widened and here's why it's bad for the environment and will undermine California's climate goals. Oh and the 1000000th iteration of wording the headline "induced demand!!!!!!" here and we shouldn't widen freeways because of it.
Goddamn this shit gets old.
Yeah, I agree it really sucks when different people have different opinions on matters. Only the opinions I like should be allowed.
Quote from: Plutonic Panda on March 03, 2024, 09:04:07 PM
At the end of the day the state needs leaders who will forgo whatever "environmental" rules that cause every reporter on the issue and their dog to shit their panties about freeways being widened. It's nice to see updates on California roadways but why continue to post the sam goddamn fucking article 5 times, every month, that says the same shit? Freeway x is being widened and here's why it's bad for the environment and will undermine California's climate goals. Oh and the 1000000th iteration of wording the headline "induced demand!!!!!!" here and we shouldn't widen freeways because of it.
Goddamn this shit gets old.
Well, first, I filter out a lot of the slant (hopefully, about 99% of it) when it makes it into my pages. When you have your slant filter on, you know what you can ignore.
What were you saying again?
Seriously, we're going to be getting more articles like this because traditional freeway projects will be fewer. Look at the highway page updates I just posted. Read through the next iteration of the SHOPP. Very few true widening projects -- mostly rehabilitation and active transportation. That's what you see, so that's what the articles are ... whether you like it or not. I just report the articles that I see.
While the climate goals of the state and things like reducing VMT aren't my cup either I don't tend to see a point in angrily ranting about them. I tend to prefer to take a logical understanding as to how things became how they are and how I can counter opine. I tend to not offer opinions on GN and let the reader decide for themselves.
Then again, I chose to live here and I guess that I could in theory move again if I found the situation has become too disagreeable. Nowhere is perfect and nor does it always remain the same.
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on March 03, 2024, 11:35:04 PM
While the climate goals of the state and things like reducing VMT aren't my cup either I don't tend to see a point in angrily ranting about them. I tend to prefer to take a logical understanding as to how things became how they are and how I can counter opine. I tend to not offer opinions on GN and let the reader decide for themselves.
Then again, I chose to live here and I guess that I could in theory move again if I found the situation has become too disagreeable.
Most of his rants seem to boil down to "I don't like these things, therefore they're bad."
I agree... I've said before that it's not some nefarious plot. Widening freeways endlessly doesn't magically solve traffic problems, it tends to increase traffic. There are decades of studies that come to this, it's not like some guy is just sitting around saying "freeways are bad, no more freeways." (Hey, didn't we just see people try this with the Marina Freeway, and it was quickly shot down?) Decisions are made based on studies, surveys, all sorts of factors. I see this oftentimes with bike lanes. People claim they never see any bikers, therefore they're bad. But are they sitting there 24/7, doing actual studies? Most people make these statements based on their own observations. But it's a big city with over ten million people. And people have different view points about what should or shouldn't be done.
And like it or not, climates are changing. We do need to respond to it. Does that mean every single person pushing a climate solution is doing it for the greater good? No, there are always grifters. But unlike some other states, at least California seems to recognize that climates are changing and that will impact things in the future, for better or for worse.
As always: why do the pro-freeway people matter more than the anti-freeway people? Or vice versa?
There is something to be said though about how modern American life largely revolves around commuting from a suburban-like area. While it would be "nice" to have options I tend see much of these older cities as too far gone to be really truly "multimodal."
To that extent I can see viewing stuff like prioritizing trying to make the infrastructure more diverse as potentially frustrating to someone who has used freeways for commuting purposes much of their life. Likewise it probably feels even more frustrating if the changes in transportation priorities tend to come off as forcing you to potentially change your mode of life. How many people at the end of the day actually like change?...doesn't seem like many.
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on March 03, 2024, 11:47:09 PM
There is something to be said though about how modern American life largely revolves around commuting from a suburban-like area. While it would be "nice" to have options I tend see much of these older cities as too far gone to be really truly "multimodal." To that extent I can see viewing stuff like prioritizing trying to make the infrastructure more diverse as potentially frustrating to someone who has used freeways for commuting purposes much of their life.
I agree. I rely on the freeways. I would like them to be widened. But I recognize it's easier said than done, and it will very likely just encourage even more cars. But I also recognize my needs are no more or less important than anyone else's. Not everyone has access to a car, so I can get why mass transit improvements are necessary. Some people want bike lanes or sidewalks so they can move on bike or foot more safely. Do their needs not matter as much? That's the thing, everyone has their world view and recognizing that not everyone agrees with you can be hard. But it's just something we have to learn to do as a society.
Before I drove, I had to take the bus to school. I didn't like having to deal with a single bus line that only came every two hours. Since I've gotten my car, I've noticed many service improvements. Even if it's not something I personally use anymore, I can understand how beneficial that would be to some people. Not everything that is being done will personally impact me, but I understand why they happen. Earlier today, I was walking along a road that has no sidewalk, and only a tiny shoulder. My only alternative was a washed out, muddy trail. So I chose the road. I kept thinking how nice having either a bike lane or sidewalk would be here. It would have made things a lot safer for me. But no doubt some people will counter with "if you're going to widen, why not put another lane there?" And there's no right or wrong answer here.
Me personally I couldn't fathom trying to make it (or function) long term as an adult in the United States without access to a car. I'm skeptical given that newer American cities like Phoenix and Las Vegas definitely aren't built to facilitate dense urban living. Even the recently booming cities of the Central Valley like Fresno and Bakersfield are developing largely as car centric.
I don't know, sometimes going down visit family in Mexico is a refreshing eye opener. The town my wife's family is from is 500 years old and was built with walking everywhere in mind. That's an actual place where you can get by with using your feet a bike rather than a car. Outside of a handful of super dense cities like NYC or SF we really don't have that state side.
I mean hey, I'm a distance runner and going on long distance bike rides isn't super uncommon for me. I just don't see how any of the current measures being taken would ever permit to commute to work via anything by car. I would totally need to change what I do for work and get off the retirement trajectory I'm on. That would never work for me, but perhaps someone far younger in their career life?
Quote from: Quillz on March 03, 2024, 11:19:07 PM
Yeah, I agree it really sucks when different people have different opinions on matters. Only the opinions I like should be allowed.
Yeah totally let's just have the same opinion over and over like a broken record. Real productive.
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on March 03, 2024, 11:35:04 PM
While the climate goals of the state and things like reducing VMT aren't my cup either I don't tend to see a point in angrily ranting about them. I tend to prefer to take a logical understanding as to how things became how they are and how I can counter opine. I tend to not offer opinions on GN and let the reader decide for themselves.
Then again, I chose to live here and I guess that I could in theory move again if I found the situation has become too disagreeable. Nowhere is perfect and nor does it always remain the same.
So, what should we do? Happily agree with them?
Quote from: cahwyguy on March 03, 2024, 11:33:46 PM
Quote from: Plutonic Panda on March 03, 2024, 09:04:07 PM
At the end of the day the state needs leaders who will forgo whatever "environmental" rules that cause every reporter on the issue and their dog to shit their panties about freeways being widened. It's nice to see updates on California roadways but why continue to post the sam goddamn fucking article 5 times, every month, that says the same shit? Freeway x is being widened and here's why it's bad for the environment and will undermine California's climate goals. Oh and the 1000000th iteration of wording the headline "induced demand!!!!!!" here and we shouldn't widen freeways because of it.
Goddamn this shit gets old.
Well, first, I filter out a lot of the slant (hopefully, about 99% of it) when it makes it into my pages. When you have your slant filter on, you know what you can ignore.
What were you saying again?
Seriously, we're going to be getting more articles like this because traditional freeway projects will be fewer. Look at the highway page updates I just posted. Read through the next iteration of the SHOPP. Very few true widening projects -- mostly rehabilitation and active transportation. That's what you see, so that's what the articles are ... whether you like it or not. I just report the articles that I see.
Yeah because it's totally reasonable that we will get fewer widening projects yet more articles about how bad it is to widen freeways.
PS, I should add I'm not mad at you or blaming you.
Quote from: Quillz on March 03, 2024, 11:40:01 PM
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on March 03, 2024, 11:35:04 PM
While the climate goals of the state and things like reducing VMT aren't my cup either I don't tend to see a point in angrily ranting about them. I tend to prefer to take a logical understanding as to how things became how they are and how I can counter opine. I tend to not offer opinions on GN and let the reader decide for themselves.
Then again, I chose to live here and I guess that I could in theory move again if I found the situation has become too disagreeable.
Most of his rants seem to boil down to "I don't like these things, therefore they're bad."
I agree... I've said before that it's not some nefarious plot. Widening freeways endlessly doesn't magically solve traffic problems, it tends to increase traffic. There are decades of studies that come to this, it's not like some guy is just sitting around saying "freeways are bad, no more freeways." (Hey, didn't we just see people try this with the Marina Freeway, and it was quickly shot down?) Decisions are made based on studies, surveys, all sorts of factors. I see this oftentimes with bike lanes. People claim they never see any bikers, therefore they're bad. But are they sitting there 24/7, doing actual studies? Most people make these statements based on their own observations. But it's a big city with over ten million people. And people have different view points about what should or shouldn't be done.
And like it or not, climates are changing. We do need to respond to it. Does that mean every single person pushing a climate solution is doing it for the greater good? No, there are always grifters. But unlike some other states, at least California seems to recognize that climates are changing and that will impact things in the future, for better or for worse.
As always: why do the pro-freeway people matter more than the anti-freeway people? Or vice versa?
Yeah that's generally what a rant is going to be. I don't like this and I'm pissed. Why the fuck would I not like something that's good? What the hell kind of sense does that make? Of course if I think something is bad I won't like it. And if I don't like something I'm going to think it's bad. Is that wrong?
And furthermore you go on to claim that you support the widening of freeways but also chime in that you believe that results in the freeway being used more so what's the point? What's your point? I really don't understand it. Pick and choose. Either you want freeways to be widened or you don't. I don't mind discussing induced demand with someone but choose a position on it.
You clearly don't read my posts if you think that's all I do. Or maybe you're just hyper fixating on my rants. Oh well.
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on March 03, 2024, 11:47:09 PM
There is something to be said though about how modern American life largely revolves around commuting from a suburban-like area. While it would be "nice" to have options I tend see much of these older cities as too far gone to be really truly "multimodal."
To that extent I can see viewing stuff like prioritizing trying to make the infrastructure more diverse as potentially frustrating to someone who has used freeways for commuting purposes much of their life. Likewise it probably feels even more frustrating if the changes in transportation priorities tend to come off as forcing you to potentially change your mode of life. How many people at the end of the day actually like change?...doesn't seem like many.
Max that's my problem with this whole thing in California. I would completely get behind it and support it if it was truly a goal to become multimodal. Hell I could even understand throwing freeway widenings and similar projects on the back burner until this goal was realized. But that's not the goal and you know it.
Contrary to what quills says, there is a hidden nefarious motive, which is to completely make cities hostile to cars and remove as much car infrastructure as possible while making it as expensive and hard as possible to drive.
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on March 03, 2024, 11:58:18 PM
Me personally I couldn't fathom trying to make it (or function) long term as an adult in the United States without access to a car. I'm skeptical given that newer American cities like Phoenix and Las Vegas definitely aren't built to facilitate dense urban living. Even the recently booming cities of the Central Valley like Fresno and Bakersfield are developing largely as car centric.
I don't know, sometimes going down visit family in Mexico is a refreshing eye opener. The town my wife's family is from is 500 years old and was built with walking everywhere in mind. That's an actual place where you can get by with using your feet a bike rather than a car. Outside of a handful of super dense cities like NYC or SF we really don't have that state side.
I mean hey, I'm a distance runner and going on long distance bike rides isn't super uncommon for me. I just don't see how any of the current measures being taken would ever permit to commute to work via anything by car. I would totally need to change what I do for work and get off the retirement trajectory I'm on. That would never work for me, but perhaps someone far younger in their career life?
The sort of anti car crap you see in California and New York is a not coming to Nevada or Arizona anytime soon. It may or may not come one day but not in the near future.
And regarding your other comment about moving, that very well may be in the cards for me one day but ultimately I'd rather stay and fight to protect such a beautiful and accessible place to become one ruled by anti car nuts. Admittedly I would have already failed in such an endeavor but that doesn't call for running away and moving.
We'll just see how crazy these loons get because I don't see their ability to draw a line in the sand present.
Quote from: Plutonic Panda on March 04, 2024, 02:09:14 AM
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on March 03, 2024, 11:35:04 PM
While the climate goals of the state and things like reducing VMT aren't my cup either I don't tend to see a point in angrily ranting about them. I tend to prefer to take a logical understanding as to how things became how they are and how I can counter opine. I tend to not offer opinions on GN and let the reader decide for themselves.
Then again, I chose to live here and I guess that I could in theory move again if I found the situation has become too disagreeable. Nowhere is perfect and nor does it always remain the same.
So, what should we do? Happily agree with them?
Recognize that different people have different viewpoints, and calling people "stupid" because they have viewpoints you don't agree with isn't productive.
Quote from: Plutonic Panda on March 04, 2024, 02:21:47 AM
Contrary to what quills says, there is a hidden nefarious motive, which is to completely make cities hostile to cars and remove as much car infrastructure as possible while making it as expensive and hard as possible to drive.
How do you know this is happening if it's hidden? What evidence do you have?
Quote from: Plutonic Panda on March 04, 2024, 02:25:11 AM
The sort of anti car crap you see in California and New York is a not coming to Nevada or Arizona anytime soon. It may or may not come one day but not in the near future.
How do you know? And what about other arbitrary states? You pick a sample size of two and then offer no explanation or evidence that something will or will not happen.
Quote from: Quillz on March 04, 2024, 02:53:57 AM
Quote from: Plutonic Panda on March 04, 2024, 02:09:14 AM
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on March 03, 2024, 11:35:04 PM
While the climate goals of the state and things like reducing VMT aren't my cup either I don't tend to see a point in angrily ranting about them. I tend to prefer to take a logical understanding as to how things became how they are and how I can counter opine. I tend to not offer opinions on GN and let the reader decide for themselves.
Then again, I chose to live here and I guess that I could in theory move again if I found the situation has become too disagreeable. Nowhere is perfect and nor does it always remain the same.
So, what should we do? Happily agree with them?
Recognize that different people have different viewpoints, and calling people "stupid" because they have viewpoints you don't agree with isn't productive.
I do recognize people have different viewpoints just like I recognize when those viewpoints make no sense. Once again you conveniently skirt over my point and fail to address it.
Quote from: Quillz on March 04, 2024, 02:54:43 AM
Quote from: Plutonic Panda on March 04, 2024, 02:21:47 AM
Contrary to what quills says, there is a hidden nefarious motive, which is to completely make cities hostile to cars and remove as much car infrastructure as possible while making it as expensive and hard as possible to drive.
How do you know this is happening if it's hidden? What evidence do you have?
At this point in time I have no evidence other than the constant and steady removal of car focused infrastructure from METRO.
Quote from: Quillz on March 04, 2024, 02:56:21 AM
Quote from: Plutonic Panda on March 04, 2024, 02:25:11 AM
The sort of anti car crap you see in California and New York is a not coming to Nevada or Arizona anytime soon. It may or may not come one day but not in the near future.
How do you know? And what about other arbitrary states? You pick a sample size of two and then offer no explanation or evidence that something will or will not happen.
Alright you'll see.
Quote from: Plutonic Panda on March 04, 2024, 03:08:35 AM
Quote from: Quillz on March 04, 2024, 02:53:57 AM
Quote from: Plutonic Panda on March 04, 2024, 02:09:14 AM
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on March 03, 2024, 11:35:04 PM
While the climate goals of the state and things like reducing VMT aren't my cup either I don't tend to see a point in angrily ranting about them. I tend to prefer to take a logical understanding as to how things became how they are and how I can counter opine. I tend to not offer opinions on GN and let the reader decide for themselves.
Then again, I chose to live here and I guess that I could in theory move again if I found the situation has become too disagreeable. Nowhere is perfect and nor does it always remain the same.
So, what should we do? Happily agree with them?
Recognize that different people have different viewpoints, and calling people "stupid" because they have viewpoints you don't agree with isn't productive.
I do recognize people have different viewpoints just like I recognize when those viewpoints make no sense. Once again you conveniently skirt over my point and fail to address it.
So this demonstrates what I said earlier. You basically have the mind set of "anyone who disagrees with me is stupid or makes no sense." Fair enough, I guess. Freeway expansion is difficult and there will always be negatives to it, like eminent domain. There will always be trade-offs that have to be made. It's a complicated matter and it's not as easy as you often make it sound.
Quote from: Plutonic Panda on March 04, 2024, 03:09:35 AM
Quote from: Quillz on March 04, 2024, 02:54:43 AM
Quote from: Plutonic Panda on March 04, 2024, 02:21:47 AM
Contrary to what quills says, there is a hidden nefarious motive, which is to completely make cities hostile to cars and remove as much car infrastructure as possible while making it as expensive and hard as possible to drive.
How do you know this is happening if it's hidden? What evidence do you have?
At this point in time I have no evidence other than the constant and steady removal of car focused infrastructure from METRO.
Can you show me some tangible examples of this, so I have a better frame of reference?
Mind your PPs and Qs, guys.
The one thing I hear little about is cost-effectiveness. How many urban or suburban thoroughfares have been put on a lane diet, for the benefit of cyclists? (I'm not a cyclist, but I used to be an avid skater, and I used bike lanes all the time.) But when I see that done to a road, what I notice is how practically empty the bike lanes are. Look down the street a quarter mile, and you'll see dozens of cars in each lane, but usually no bikes at all. I'm talking about places like Venice and Santa Monica CA.
The same is true for public transit, outside of the densest cities. Commuter trains are usually staggeringly expensive to build, maintain, and run, when you divide that by ridership. I remember when I lived in Portland OR, and they put in a new line west out to Hillsboro, which cost about a billion dollars (in the 1990s). Looking at recent stats (2022), it appears that the AADT on US-26 west of Portland is about 122K. The total ridership on the entire Blue Line is about 26K per day, so the west side is probably about a tenth of the number of cars, and many of those cars have passengers. So I'm not surprised that we didn't notice any meaningful thinning of the traffic on US-26. In 2023 TriMet's total passenger revenue was about $33 million, and their tax revenue was about $290 million. In Oregon, about 60% of the cost of all roads comes from user fees, such as the gas tax. So transit riders are getting a much better deal than drivers are, especially when you consider that a significant chunk of the gas tax is diverted to transit.
As to widening freeways, of course widening freeways causes people to drive more. But it's not as though they're driving more for the same benefit (as if they closed a road and people had to take a long detour). They drive more because the improvements widened the range they could cover for a given cost and effort. If you widen a freeway, at first the traffic density goes down, but eventually it goes back up. But you have more people traveling on it. It gives more people who live in a particular place a wider range of choices where to work, or people who work in a particular place a wider range of choices where to live. When people drive more because driving has been made easier, they are receiving a benefit roughly proportional to whatever externality (pollution, eminent domain) results. So logic says that if you think it's not worth the benefit, then we ought to be tearing up roads to make it even harder for people to get anywhere. Can you imagine the Los Angeles area without freeways? The VMT stats would be pretty tiny, and life would be a lot more difficult.
QuoteIf you widen a freeway, at first the traffic density goes down, but eventually it goes back up.
This is what I was stating earlier. Widening freeways will not solve traffic issues, eventually cars will use up all the lanes and you'll still have traffic. The reasons why they will be used might be different, but no matter how many lanes you add, they will get used and you'll run into traffic and still be driving at slow speeds during rush hour. Places like Atlanta have freeways that are 20 lanes wide and they still are subject to massive traffic jams.
I have no strong opinions on freeway widening. If they get widened, great. If not, so be it. All I have been saying is that widening freeways will not solve traffic issues in the way that some people seem to think it will be.
Quote from: Plutonic Panda on March 04, 2024, 02:09:14 AM
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on March 03, 2024, 11:35:04 PM
While the climate goals of the state and things like reducing VMT aren't my cup either I don't tend to see a point in angrily ranting about them. I tend to prefer to take a logical understanding as to how things became how they are and how I can counter opine. I tend to not offer opinions on GN and let the reader decide for themselves.
Then again, I chose to live here and I guess that I could in theory move again if I found the situation has become too disagreeable. Nowhere is perfect and nor does it always remain the same.
So, what should we do? Happily agree with them?
No, but the Kernals12 approach isn't the solution either.
Let me ask, you how many people who complain about things like this actually do things like petition a local representative? It isn't many and perhaps if more did there might be actual things that come from it. I get that some have tried, but they tend to give up if they aren't heard or aren't persistent. It takes effort to motivate political change from a cool and logical perspective, in the end it might not even work.
Take what I do on GN pertaining to California. I try to present what we do in an unbiased as possible manner. Our core message is that the history of our roads is worth knowing. That message might not have a huge footprint but when something gets shared virally on social media perhaps someone might see something in it or change their stance? I know we wouldn't have the same impact if I filled our articles, blogs and posts with angry personal opinions.
Quote from: Plutonic Panda on March 04, 2024, 02:25:11 AM
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on March 03, 2024, 11:58:18 PM
Me personally I couldn't fathom trying to make it (or function) long term as an adult in the United States without access to a car. I'm skeptical given that newer American cities like Phoenix and Las Vegas definitely aren't built to facilitate dense urban living. Even the recently booming cities of the Central Valley like Fresno and Bakersfield are developing largely as car centric.
I don't know, sometimes going down visit family in Mexico is a refreshing eye opener. The town my wife's family is from is 500 years old and was built with walking everywhere in mind. That's an actual place where you can get by with using your feet a bike rather than a car. Outside of a handful of super dense cities like NYC or SF we really don't have that state side.
I mean hey, I'm a distance runner and going on long distance bike rides isn't super uncommon for me. I just don't see how any of the current measures being taken would ever permit to commute to work via anything by car. I would totally need to change what I do for work and get off the retirement trajectory I'm on. That would never work for me, but perhaps someone far younger in their career life?
The sort of anti car crap you see in California and New York is a not coming to Nevada or Arizona anytime soon. It may or may not come one day but not in the near future.
And regarding your other comment about moving, that very well may be in the cards for me one day but ultimately I'd rather stay and fight to protect such a beautiful and accessible place to become one ruled by anti car nuts. Admittedly I would have already failed in such an endeavor but that doesn't call for running away and moving.
We'll just see how crazy these loons get because I don't see their ability to draw a line in the sand present.
The reason I have stayed here in the first place largely is because I got married and my wife's family is here. Had that not happened there is a fair chance that I would have already taken a transfer to Washington State in 2017 and then to Italy in 2020 when nobody wanted to go there. .
That said, there are a couple other things that have kept me here. From a financial standpoint we own a newer home that my wife was wise enough to buy at the bottom of the real estate bubble. We just simply cannot find what we pay for a mortgage many other places in the country outside of super rural areas.
Both of us are also a decade for maximizing our pensions. I can take my pension in on me on transfers given I'm a Federal employee, my wife can only do so in state.
I previously had lived in Florida and Arizona prior to moving here. I largely moved back here because it wasn't a larger urban I transferred in the Central Valley and I had lots of recreational opportunities in all directions. I was a home owner in both those states but I also failed to create the optimal scenario my wife and I have now.
All of what I describe is largely internal factors which I mostly have full control over. To me, it would be illogical to spend a bunch of time getting all riled up about forces at play that really can't affect the scenario I built for myself. I know that doesn't work for everyone but it did for me after I maneuvered through three states to make things fully work my way.
I, like Tom/Max, try to take the neutral view on things. I try to understand why things are happening, and filter out biases when I read and write things. There's stuff from Streetsblog and related organizations in my headlines post primarily because they do write about changes to highways, and I do try to focus on things related to widening and major changes. There are lots of headlines I don't include about storm related closures and resurfacing repairs, because those are ephemeral and by the time I come to do my highway page updates (which is why I started the headline posts), they are already overtaken by events.
With that said, there has been a fundamental shift in Caltrans and CTC and the Regional agency planning: SB 743. The MTC summarizes it well (https://mtc.ca.gov/planning/transportation/driving-congestion-environment/sb-743-los-vmt-transition):
Quote
SB 743, which took effect July 1, 2020, helps reduce transportation's impacts on the environment.
Before July 1, 2020, traffic congestion levels (known as level of service, or LOS) were the main measurement to determine the negative environmental impacts of development and transportation projects.
Under SB 743, these effects are now measured according to the overall amount that people drive (known as vehicle-miles traveled, or VMT).
VMT is calculated as part of a building or transportation project's CEQA environmental review process.
They also note:
Quote
To reduce this pollution, Senate Bill 743 works with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) to prioritize development and transportation projects that get people out of individual cars and into sustainable modes of transportation.
By reducing the number of vehicle miles traveled (VMT), we reduce the amount of air pollution from cars.
Note that this is also true for electric cars, at least now with our current generation processes. Use less electricity, you have less non-sustainable power generation.
So the goal is not to do major widenings. They don't reduce VMT, are hard to get through the CEQA process, and are very expensive with right of way issues and litigation, unless they are in rural areas (and that's not where the need is). That's why we won't see them. Same thing with new freeways. That's a like it or not, kids. If you don't like it, get your state legislators to change SB 743.
Streetsblog is right that Caltrans still does have a widening mentality, and attempts to get around it with aux lanes and weasel wording of proposals. I don't agree with their conclusions or how they ascribe motives, or how they see things as evil plots... but they at least talk about when this is done. THey also call Caltrans to task when they seemingly target lower income areas with their plans, because those are cheap. Highways have a horrible record in that area, espec. during the major area of highway construction when poor neighborhoods were destroyed to build roads. That's a fact we have to acknowledge. It is also important to acknowledge that while highways may help remove congestion from local communities they cut through, they don't help local businesses. They benefit through traffic. So often, the local tax base loses, and the suburbs win. There are lots of moving parts here.
We can argue whether this is right or that is right all day. Doesn't change anything. Don't like it? Every time I post the legislative information changes, and on my legislative information page (https://www.cahighways.org/links-legislation.html), I give the link to the Legislature site. Comment on bills. Talk to your assembly and senate critters. If you live in California, VOTE TOMORROW. And understand the laws we have, and filter what you read through that lens.
As with our political choices (which I've written about in my ballot analysis), we don't get want we want. We have to live and choose between what we have. And, like it or not, we are in a SB 743 world, where we need to reduce VMT. Until that gets changed, we're not going to see new projects that will have the end result of increasing VMT. When we've reduced the threat of climate change, when we've improved neighborhood livability, when we've increased sustainable transportation options, and when there's been a marked shift to vehicles that are less pollution-inducing, then the pols will change the goalposts again.
I feel like my main point keeps being missed. People don't drive on a freeway at random, they drive because they receive some benefit from it. And it can be a considerable benefit, given that they're willing to put up with traffic jams in order to do it. So if a freeway is widened from eight to ten lanes, once the traffic per lane drifts back up to what it was before, the traffic jams return, but 25% more people are receiving the benefit of driving on that freeway. This huge benefit seems totally invisible to the people who are talking about VMT and Climate Change.
Also, declining to widen freeways isn't going to make any meaningful improvement to the climate. If you want to do that, build nuclear power plants all over the place, and only use fossil fuels for mobile use where they're vastly superior to the alternatives. That will actually work. Yet most of the Climate Change obsessives have a passionate nuclear power phobia. So the only way to make sense of their preferred policies is that they are expressing cultural prejudices, and largely irrational ones at that.
Quote from: pderocco on March 05, 2024, 01:34:57 AM
I feel like my main point keeps being missed. People don't drive on a freeway at random, they drive because they receive some benefit from it. And it can be a considerable benefit, given that they're willing to put up with traffic jams in order to do it. So if a freeway is widened from eight to ten lanes, once the traffic per lane drifts back up to what it was before, the traffic jams return, but 25% more people are receiving the benefit of driving on that freeway. This huge benefit seems totally invisible to the people who are talking about VMT and Climate Change.
No, it's just that it is not a benefit from their point of view. The goal, under SB743, is to reduce VMT. You said yourself that this increases VMT -- more people are driving. Remember that benefit is defined relative to the goal, and LOS -- number of vehicles through over time -- is no longer a goal.
Further, what seems to get their skivvies in a wad is that fact that Caltrans is doing widenings without doing widenings. By that I mean that Caltrans is not adding general purpose lanes, which would trigger full environmental reviews and assessment of VMT impacts -- and require offsetting mitigations for those VMT impacts (so in addition to the widening, they need to add VMT reduction projects nearby (such as parallel bike or transit facilities), or incorporate it in the widenings (such as express lanes). What Caltrans is doing is adding short stretches of AUX lanes, which DON'T trigger the EIR requjirements and mitigations. They ascribe duplicity to that approach; I just see it as Caltrans trying to save money.
Quote
Also, declining to widen freeways isn't going to make any meaningful improvement to the climate. If you want to do that, build nuclear power plants all over the place, and only use fossil fuels for mobile use where they're vastly superior to the alternatives. That will actually work. Yet most of the Climate Change obsessives have a passionate nuclear power phobia. So the only way to make sense of their preferred policies is that they are expressing cultural prejudices, and largely irrational ones at that.
It's hard to say what will make meaningful changes to long term climate at this point. But reducing the number of conventional vehicles on the road will reduce fuel usage and the burning of petroleum for vehicles. The impact of moving to alternative fuel vehicles is less clear, because how their power is generated (electricity, hydrogen) is less clear and still have impacts. Reducing VMT also reduces gas tax revenue, which is right now the road funding source.
Oh, and preferred policies always reflect current cultural prejudices. You just don't like them because the legislative prejudices don't match your prejudices. But I'm not sure that these forums are the place to talk about those prejudices. There is a policy to reduce VMT, and VMT must be accounted for in EIRs -- like that policy or not (and if you don't, change your politicians). That policy leans to less widening and less AUX lanes, and certainly leads to no new freeways. Additionally, our understanding of the equity issues involved with widening and new construction -- that is, the impact upon the character and nature of communities, and the disproportionate impact on financially weaker communities -- has grown, and we now want to consider that impact as part of the EIRs. These things lead to different solutions.
Eras change, and societies change. At one time, the answer was to build more railroad lines. We just need that technological leap. Where are the air cars we were promised? Because where we're going, we shouldn't need roads.
QuoteYou just don't like them because the legislative prejudices don't match your prejudices.
That's pretty much the vibe I got from some posters here. Their complaints are basically "these things are bad because I don't agree with them." That's fine, everyone has their world view. But that means it goes both ways, that something isn't bad just because you don't agree with it. I have no doubt there are plenty of "environmental" politicians only interested in lining their own pockets, but I don't agree that the entire thing is just some giant scam. I really do think society and some agencies want to do better, but like all things in life, it's a trial-and-error process. No doubt some things that are being done now will end up not being the right course of action. But the goal is to learn and improve. As opposed to just saying "well so-and-so won't make any impact, so let's just give up altogether."
QuoteAdditionally, our understanding of the equity issues involved with widening and new construction -- that is, the impact upon the character and nature of communities, and the disproportionate impact on financially weaker communities -- has grown, and we now want to consider that impact as part of the EIRs.
Yes, I have commented on this before. I wonder how many of the overtly pro-freeway people have ever had to live in neighborhoods displaced by freeway building, or had their house eminent domain'd. Everything has a trade-off in life, nothing is free. Wide freeways always come at the expense of something, whether it's nature or neighborhoods. This, of course, applies to more than just freeways. Such as the neighborhood that had to be completely wiped out to build Dodger Stadium, for example. At some point, someone has to pay for the things we want.
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on March 04, 2024, 08:23:49 AM
Quote from: Plutonic Panda on March 04, 2024, 02:09:14 AM
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on March 03, 2024, 11:35:04 PM
While the climate goals of the state and things like reducing VMT aren't my cup either I don't tend to see a point in angrily ranting about them. I tend to prefer to take a logical understanding as to how things became how they are and how I can counter opine. I tend to not offer opinions on GN and let the reader decide for themselves.
Then again, I chose to live here and I guess that I could in theory move again if I found the situation has become too disagreeable. Nowhere is perfect and nor does it always remain the same.
So, what should we do? Happily agree with them?
No, but the Kernals12 approach isn't the solution either.
Let me ask, you how many people who complain about things like this actually do things like petition a local representative? It isn't many and perhaps if more did there might be actual things that come from it. I get that some have tried, but they tend to give up if they aren't heard or aren't persistent. It takes effort to motivate political change from a cool and logical perspective, in the end it might not even work.
Take what I do on GN pertaining to California. I try to present what we do in an unbiased as possible manner. Our core message is that the history of our roads is worth knowing. That message might not have a huge footprint but when something gets shared virally on social media perhaps someone might see something in it or change their stance? I know we wouldn't have the same impact if I filled our articles, blogs and posts with angry personal opinions.
Quote from: Plutonic Panda on March 04, 2024, 02:25:11 AM
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on March 03, 2024, 11:58:18 PM
Me personally I couldn't fathom trying to make it (or function) long term as an adult in the United States without access to a car. I'm skeptical given that newer American cities like Phoenix and Las Vegas definitely aren't built to facilitate dense urban living. Even the recently booming cities of the Central Valley like Fresno and Bakersfield are developing largely as car centric.
I don't know, sometimes going down visit family in Mexico is a refreshing eye opener. The town my wife's family is from is 500 years old and was built with walking everywhere in mind. That's an actual place where you can get by with using your feet a bike rather than a car. Outside of a handful of super dense cities like NYC or SF we really don't have that state side.
I mean hey, I'm a distance runner and going on long distance bike rides isn't super uncommon for me. I just don't see how any of the current measures being taken would ever permit to commute to work via anything by car. I would totally need to change what I do for work and get off the retirement trajectory I'm on. That would never work for me, but perhaps someone far younger in their career life?
The sort of anti car crap you see in California and New York is a not coming to Nevada or Arizona anytime soon. It may or may not come one day but not in the near future.
And regarding your other comment about moving, that very well may be in the cards for me one day but ultimately I'd rather stay and fight to protect such a beautiful and accessible place to become one ruled by anti car nuts. Admittedly I would have already failed in such an endeavor but that doesn't call for running away and moving.
We'll just see how crazy these loons get because I don't see their ability to draw a line in the sand present.
The reason I have stayed here in the first place largely is because I got married and my wife's family is here. Had that not happened there is a fair chance that I would have already taken a transfer to Washington State in 2017 and then to Italy in 2020 when nobody wanted to go there. .
That said, there are a couple other things that have kept me here. From a financial standpoint we own a newer home that my wife was wise enough to buy at the bottom of the real estate bubble. We just simply cannot find what we pay for a mortgage many other places in the country outside of super rural areas.
Both of us are also a decade for maximizing our pensions. I can take my pension in on me on transfers given I'm a Federal employee, my wife can only do so in state.
I previously had lived in Florida and Arizona prior to moving here. I largely moved back here because it wasn't a larger urban I transferred in the Central Valley and I had lots of recreational opportunities in all directions. I was a home owner in both those states but I also failed to create the optimal scenario my wife and I have now.
All of what I describe is largely internal factors which I mostly have full control over. To me, it would be illogical to spend a bunch of time getting all riled up about forces at play that really can't affect the scenario I built for myself. I know that doesn't work for everyone but it did for me after I maneuvered through three states to make things fully work my way.
I've taken some time away to think about this, and reflect on what you and CAHWYGUY said. You both make very good points. I could've worded what I was trying to say better without being so aggressive. Also calling them stupid really wasn't the right word I should've said ridiculous.
With that said, I still am going to stick to the main premise of my point which is I don't think this is all random. I don't think most people agree with this sort of stuff. We did see HLE pass in LA, which could indicate that most people do agree with it. But I don't think that's the case in LA will vote for just about anything if it's labeled as progressive.
I think the stuff is being shoved down our throats. I disagree with the notion that Caltrans is widening freeways, even if they call adding auxiliary lanes and such projects to widen freeways not so.
I really can't think of very project. Caltrans is undertaking that is under the jurisdiction of Metropolitan transit authority. Most of the main widening projects are being done in Santa Clara or Orange County. LA has two which is the widening and the SR 73 expansion and upgrade. But again that is not a Caltrans endeavor. That is LA Metro. That same agency has canceled several major freeway widening.
Caltrans seems to be very much anti-freeway these days and does the bare minimum of what they can and seems very quick to shut down freeway expansions or postpone them like they have with CA 99 in several spots.
But my view is there's a small group of people who represent an anti-Car ideology and want to do everything possible to get rid of Cars and the associated infrastructure.
Or maybe people did have time to read and think about HLE, as opposed to just mindlessly voting yes or no. I'm sure if it didn't pass, you'd have a different claim. Low voter turnout also suggests that a lot of people likely don't have a strong opinion on the matter. HLE also specifically applies to county-maintained roads. Things that have been relinquished (like CA-2 through Santa Monica), anything within an incorporated city, is not applicable. And it applies to future improvements, it doesn't force the county to just immediately change up roads.
And how is it "being shoved down our throats" when these things are open to public comment and votes? Again, just because you don't like something doesn't mean it's being forced on people. You're letting your biases impact your critical thinking. If people don't go to the public meetings, if they don't comment, if they don't vote in local elections, that suggest a larger problem with civic engagement, not "things being forced down our throat." Seems the larger issue is people being more concerned with national elections, even though who your mayor is has a far bigger impact on your life than who you president is. Too often I've talked to people who complain about something within the city or state, I ask them if they voted in the last election, they say no. If they're not even going to bother with engagement (and California is one of the easiest states to vote in, between mail-in and even online voting), then I find myself wondering why they complain.
QuoteBut my view is there's a small group of people who represent an anti-Car ideology and want to do everything possible to get rid of Cars and the associated infrastructure.
Well if they're a small group, nothing to worry about then.
Dude you are so hyper focus on your theory that because I don't like something I think it's wrong. Stop with that bullshit. It's not true.
Quote from: Plutonic Panda on March 09, 2024, 04:02:45 PM
Dude you are so hyper focus on your theory that because I don't like something I think it's wrong. Stop with that bullshit. It's not true.
Well given most of your posts boil down to "things I don't like are bad," and your evidence is "people just vote for progressive stuff" or "there's a nefarious plot," I have little to go on. You also ignored the things like Max and cahwyguy posted about why Caltrans has to operate the way they do. You also seem to rarely consider the trade-offs that are necessary to freeway construction or expansion. I recall when you told people who would be affected by it to "just understand it and accept it." At one point you ignored the reasoning as to why roads haven't been extended down the Santa Monica Mountains, and that some areas are desirable because of that. This winter demonstrated how difficult it can be to maintain roads in mountainous areas, adding more is only going to make maintenance even more difficult, and require intrusion into existing communities.
And I'm sorry, but it's a message board. I can respond to your viewpoints with my own. If they are true or false, too bad. If you are posting, I will comment. Just like you can do the same with me or any other user. You also didn't respond to my earlier questions about why states like Arizona and Nevada will supposedly not have anti-car/anti-freeway sentiment now or in the future, or provide any tangible examples regarding "steady removal of car focused infrastructure from METRO." Your posts are mainly just ranting that "people who are against freeways are bad." That's my interpretation, if it's wrong, well, prove me wrong.
Quote from: Quillz on March 09, 2024, 03:00:04 PM
Or maybe people did have time to read and think about HLE, as opposed to just mindlessly voting yes or no. I'm sure if it didn't pass, you'd have a different claim. Low voter turnout also suggests that a lot of people likely don't have a strong opinion on the matter. HLE also specifically applies to county-maintained roads. Things that have been relinquished (like CA-2 through Santa Monica), anything within an incorporated city, is not applicable. And it applies to future improvements, it doesn't force the county to just immediately change up roads.
Just a note that the measure was HLA, not HLE, and it was a CITY, not a county measure (unless there was a separate measure in unincorporated county portions that I wasn't aware of). They actually had a nice website, and if you look at https://yesonhla.com/the-plan they have a really nice set of GIS interfaces that show the specific improvements that are likely. Of particular interest here is the Vehicle Enhanced Network, https://yesonhla.com/networks/vehicle , which is (unsurprisingly) quite small. Most of the improvements are at the peds, bike, transit, and neighborhood levels.
Thanks. I keep typing HLE for some reason I have no clue why I continue to do that.
The pro highway Caltrans has selected the no build alternative for the I-110 Adams Terminus ramp... you know because they're so pro freeway and love widenings.
Quote from: Plutonic Panda on March 15, 2024, 01:45:01 AM
The pro highway Caltrans has selected the no build alternative for the I-110 Adams Terminus ramp... you know because they're so pro freeway and love widenings.
According to Streetsblog:
Quote
According to the Metro letter, a lawsuit against Caltrans and Metro forced them to do full environmental impact studies. The agencies had prepared a MND (mitigated negative declaration) with FONSI (finding of no significant impact) in 2018, but the lawsuit challenged that, forcing Metro to do a full EIR (Environmental Impact Report).
Upon further study, Caltrans and Metro found the new elevated structure would have "significant environmental and community impacts," leading them to select the no-build alternative - effectively canceling the project.
The 2018 lawsuit was brought by the West Adams Heritage Association, the Adams Dockweiler Heritage Organizing Committee, and Friends of St. John's Cathedral.
The plaintiff's attorney Amy Minteer summarizes the case, "Our overarching arguments were that the flyover would have adverse impacts on the surrounding historic resources, in particular St. John's Cathedral, that it would divide and severely impact the existing University Park community, would conflict with the city's My Figueroa Plan, and would also have aesthetic, traffic, GHG [greenhouse gas], and urban decay impacts."
Minteer notes that Caltrans proposed the flyover in the 1980s. It met with controversy at the time, and in the early '90s, Caltrans decided against the project. Then, zombie-like, the project came back to life just over a decade ago. According to Minteer, Caltrans then stated it would do an EIR for the project, but prepared the MND/FONSI instead.
The lawsuit was filed in 2018. The following year, Caltrans and Metro agreed to a settlement in which they committed to a full EIR. The agencies kicked off scoping meetings in 2021. Those EIR studies led to Metro and Caltrans' decision not to build the project
West Adams Heritage Association Vice President Jean Frost told Streetsblog, "It took years of organizing, reaching out, getting expert opinion, and coordinating a campaign against a terrible idea that ought not to have gained traction."
So its not an issue of bias for or against widening -- it is community opposition and impact on historical facilities, which is a concern these days.
Same repeated excuse for the 710 tunnel. Same repeated excuse for the 710 expansion. Same repeated excuse for the HDC freeway.
Obviously there's going to be community impacts. These express lanes should be built into downtown and along the 101 Calabasas.
Oh look another day another street lane removal:
On February 1st, LADOT shared a conceptual design to improve safety along Hollywood Boulevard, which calls for converting a travel lane in each direction into a parking-protected bike lane between Lyman Pl and Van Ness Ave, and replacing parking with a protected bike lane between Van Ness Ave and Gower St. This proposed reconfiguration will:
• Help reduce excessive speeding
• Reduce pedestrian exposure to traffic
• Allow for safer turns
• Create dedicated space for people on bikes and scooters
Make traffic already worse. This goal could be done with adding bike or bus lanes replacing street parking but that won't make traffic worse by removing a GP lane so can't do that.
And this is precisely my issue with this entire thing. They aren't trying to just add alternatives. The end goal here is to make driving is absolutely hellish as possible to discourage it.
AND I DO SUPPORT SOME OF THESE PROJECTS, FOR EXAMPLE LIKE THE LA BREA BUS LANES. Personally, I would've gone even further and suggested they made those 24 seven bus lanes an added enhanced bus shelters and completely reconstructed the street. I would've even of been in favor for removing a lane of traffic on La Brea from Sunset to Hollywood.
So I'm not getting my panties in a wad or screaming with sky is falling every time a lane removal project is proposed. But the LA dot does it makes me think this is intentional and there's a nefarious motive behind this. And nefarious I mean an ideology to make this hostile as possible.
You had other posters on this thread that suggested somehow these agencies are pro widening and pro cars because they will suggest projects to enhance freeway travel by adding auxiliary lanes and passing them off as when they are in fact GP lanes. I have not seen anywhere where that has been done. You could argue that they did that on CA 60 in the Badlands BUT THAT WAS A TRUCK LANE.
PS I don't know why my cap lock keeps getting turned on automatically. I'm using speech to text.
Quote from: Plutonic Panda on March 15, 2024, 04:01:38 PM
You had other posters on this thread that suggested somehow these agencies are pro widening and pro cars because they will suggest projects to enhance freeway travel by adding auxiliary lanes and passing them off as when they are in fact GP lanes. I have not seen anywhere where that has been done. You could argue that they did that on CA 60 in the Badlands BUT THAT WAS A TRUCK LANE.
Actually, that's NOT what I'm saying. I think there is a changing of the guard at these agencies, and the older widening mindset and build build build mindset is aging out, and being replaced by folks with a more holistic view, looking at not just what is best for cars. That's being pushed by the legislature, which has legislative climate goals to reach. So, yes, they are trying to make single-car driving more painful, to get more folks onto transit. Friction does have a purpose.
But I also do believe in historic preservation and history, and do think that in the rush to build, we've often paved over history. So I don't have a problem with things like the 110 stoppage.
I also think we've been insensitive to the communities impacted. Building wider freeways helps the folks going long distances, but is horrible for the businesses in the communities they pass through, which lose loads of business.
I try to see and understand all sides of the issues, even those I don't agree with. A neutral observer, so to speak.
Like it or not, the Division of Highways is long gone. Rightly or wrongly the dynamics in this state have shifted towards more diverse transit (especially in big urban areas) and reducing single vehicle commuting. Will the current trend be something that works out in the long run?...time will only tell.
CAHWYGUY
someone on this thread suggested Caltrans was pro freeway/widening. There's a different between having a holistic view and moving to the complete opposite end of the spectrum and being against any and all car infrastructure projects. There are very few of them happening in LA county and the ones that haven't started yet are being canceled left and right.
I mean selecting the no build for the Adams terminal project is ridiculous. The express lanes were clearly designed to be extended and could have been beneficial for silver line bus riders as well if they extended it to downtown and increased the scope of the project. If not that at least finish the thing and tie it into the existing infrastructure.
Now how exactly will the 110 stoppage help historic preservation?
Why does building wider freeways to help folks go longer distances have to be a zero sum equation? What about them? Do they not get a say in their city as well? The metro is part of the city. And I live by a large freeway and have by larger ones. Businesses and communities are thriving by them. Have you been to Little Tokyo? It's right by a massive freeway and is absolutely bustling with activity and businesses making a lot of money. There's more to the picture than what you're painting.
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on March 15, 2024, 05:43:52 PM
Like it or not, the Division of Highways is long gone. Rightly or wrongly the dynamics in this state have shifted towards more diverse transit (especially in big urban areas) and reducing single vehicle commuting. Will the current trend be something that works out in the long run?...time will only tell.
That's great. I'm totally in support of better mass transit options. I use it every single day. I just don't like the path we're going on where we're completing neglecting car infrastructure. I plan on starting a thread discussing measures HLA because I have a lot of concerns and questions on that.
Quote from: Plutonic Panda on March 15, 2024, 05:47:03 PM
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on March 15, 2024, 05:43:52 PM
Like it or not, the Division of Highways is long gone. Rightly or wrongly the dynamics in this state have shifted towards more diverse transit (especially in big urban areas) and reducing single vehicle commuting. Will the current trend be something that works out in the long run?...time will only tell.
That's great. I'm totally in support of better mass transit options. I use it every single day. I just don't like the path we're going on where we're completing neglecting car infrastructure. I plan on starting a thread discussing measures HLA because I have a lot of concerns and questions on that.
Where did I say that you should support it or infer that I did?
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on March 15, 2024, 05:50:56 PM
Quote from: Plutonic Panda on March 15, 2024, 05:47:03 PM
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on March 15, 2024, 05:43:52 PM
Like it or not, the Division of Highways is long gone. Rightly or wrongly the dynamics in this state have shifted towards more diverse transit (especially in big urban areas) and reducing single vehicle commuting. Will the current trend be something that works out in the long run?...time will only tell.
That's great. I'm totally in support of better mass transit options. I use it every single day. I just don't like the path we're going on where we're completing neglecting car infrastructure. I plan on starting a thread discussing measures HLA because I have a lot of concerns and questions on that.
Where did I say that you should support it or infer that I did?
I never said you did. I'm clarifying my position.
Quote from: Plutonic Panda on March 15, 2024, 05:52:34 PM
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on March 15, 2024, 05:50:56 PM
Quote from: Plutonic Panda on March 15, 2024, 05:47:03 PM
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on March 15, 2024, 05:43:52 PM
Like it or not, the Division of Highways is long gone. Rightly or wrongly the dynamics in this state have shifted towards more diverse transit (especially in big urban areas) and reducing single vehicle commuting. Will the current trend be something that works out in the long run?...time will only tell.
That's great. I'm totally in support of better mass transit options. I use it every single day. I just don't like the path we're going on where we're completing neglecting car infrastructure. I plan on starting a thread discussing measures HLA because I have a lot of concerns and questions on that.
Where did I say that you should support it or infer that I did?
I never said you did. I'm clarifying my position.
Then what are you doing complaining about it this forum for? Shouldn't you be out trying to start campaigning for local representatives to see things your way? I'd argue that is how things started to turn towards where they are now beginning the late 1960s. It is so easy to complain on a social media platform, it way harder to actually try to change things.
Do you recall what I said about Kernals12? Why do you think that I give him such a hard time when he whines on this board? That kid is the poster example of internet whining and not taking actual initiative to do anything.
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on March 15, 2024, 05:57:31 PM
Quote from: Plutonic Panda on March 15, 2024, 05:52:34 PM
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on March 15, 2024, 05:50:56 PM
Quote from: Plutonic Panda on March 15, 2024, 05:47:03 PM
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on March 15, 2024, 05:43:52 PM
Like it or not, the Division of Highways is long gone. Rightly or wrongly the dynamics in this state have shifted towards more diverse transit (especially in big urban areas) and reducing single vehicle commuting. Will the current trend be something that works out in the long run?...time will only tell.
That's great. I'm totally in support of better mass transit options. I use it every single day. I just don't like the path we're going on where we're completing neglecting car infrastructure. I plan on starting a thread discussing measures HLA because I have a lot of concerns and questions on that.
Where did I say that you should support it or infer that I did?
I never said you did. I'm clarifying my position.
Then what are you doing complaining about it this forum for? Shouldn't you be out trying to start campaigning for local representatives to see things your way? I'd argue that is how things started to turn towards where they are now beginning the late 1960s. It is so easy to complain on a social media platform, it way harder to actually try to change things.
Do you recall what I said about Kernals12? Why do you think that I give him such a hard time when he whines on this board? That kid is the poster example of internet whining and not taking actual initiative to do anything.
How do you know that I don't do just what you're saying? And yes, I'm going to continue to complain on this board because that's what part of this board is for us to discuss things. You can characterize it however you want.
I do in fact, wright people a lot. My next step is to actually start attending meetings, but I'm a little bit shy and I have anxiety to do so. But I'm gonna try to do it.
I actually was just speaking with the head of vision zero today who works with the Los Angeles Department of transportation. She couldn't give me a clear answers to why they don't even crate landscaping barriers, which could produce the urban heat island effect instead of just slapping paint and these hollow plastic bollards they use to try and calm or use for buffers between bus/bike and car lanes.
These people don't give a fuck Max. I've written hundreds of emails and letters to my representatives and I've gotten maybe a handful of responses and out of those most of them are just generic probably computer generated replies.
And kernels 12 is on the complete extreme side of things to where that person doesn't want any transit to the point. I'm not sure if they're even serious.
Complaining here at the end of the day gets you nothing. We probably aren't the crowd you need to convince.
Sending emails into a black hole likewise isn't getting you anywhere with any form of governance. Has any notable quasi-political movement you're aware ever started gaining traction by sending emails which get auto-replies and possibly read by an admin person?
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on March 15, 2024, 06:09:25 PM
Complaining here at the end of the day gets you nothing. We probably aren't the crowd you need to convince.
Sending emails into a black hole likewise isn't getting you anywhere with any form of governance. Has any notable quasi-political movement you're aware ever started gaining traction by sending emails which get auto-replies and possibly read by an admin person?
Well, I'm not really sure what you suggest I do then. As I said, I'm looking at other ways to get more involved and show up to meetings.
Quote from: Plutonic Panda on March 15, 2024, 06:12:59 PM
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on March 15, 2024, 06:09:25 PM
Complaining here at the end of the day gets you nothing. We probably aren't the crowd you need to convince.
Sending emails into a black hole likewise isn't getting you anywhere with any form of governance. Has any notable quasi-political movement you're aware ever started gaining traction by sending emails which get auto-replies and possibly read by an admin person?
Well, I'm not really sure what you suggest I do then. As I said, I'm looking at other ways to get more involved and show up to meetings.
Changing your approach and looking into public comment probably getting on a more productive track.
Quote from: Plutonic Panda on March 15, 2024, 05:45:07 PM
CAHWYGUY
someone on this thread suggested Caltrans was pro freeway/widening. There's a different between having a holistic view and moving to the complete opposite end of the spectrum and being against any and all car infrastructure projects. There are very few of them happening in LA county and the ones that haven't started yet are being canceled left and right.
I can't speak to your unnamed someone. The view I'm talking about come from Caltrans today. I suggest you listen to this episode of the FReeway Exit podcast: https://www.kpbs.org/podcasts/freeway-exit/bonus-blowing-the-whistle-on-widening-freeways . Oh, and if you want to hear the other side: https://www.kpbs.org/podcasts/freeway-exit/bonus-in-defense-of-freeways , from the same podcast.
Quote
I mean selecting the no build for the Adams terminal project is ridiculous. The express lanes were clearly designed to be extended and could have been beneficial for silver line bus riders as well if they extended it to downtown and increased the scope of the project. If not that at least finish the thing and tie it into the existing infrastructure.
Now how exactly will the 110 stoppage help historic preservation?
They were designed to be extended, but as freeway to freeway interchange HOV lanes to future HOVs on I-10, or through downtown. Not this proposal, which was not wanted by the neighborhood it would impact.
How does it help historic preservation? Well, not building it prevents destruction of a historic church. It prevents destruction of historic homes (that district around USC has loads of historic homes. We already lost loads of homes when the Santa Monica was built, and it was treated as a simple "Black" neighborhood. That was once one of the wealthiest parts of Los Angeles. I suggest you read the EIR.
Quote
Why does building wider freeways to help folks go longer distances have to be a zero sum equation? What about them? Do they not get a say in their city as well?
First, it is often NOT their city. If they are going longer distances, they often don't live in the neighborhood that have to suffer with the pollution and the noise from the freeways (and there is noise -- I hear the noise from the 118 all the way down below Lassen). The long distance drivers don't have to suffer with the loss of business, or the barriers that make their neighborhoods unwalkable. All of this, mind you, so someone can save perhaps 5 minutes. How do you judge 5 minutes over a communities quality of life.
When it was the Division of Highways, they didn't care about such things. Today, there are mandates that they do.
I view myself as a historian. What Caltrans does, it does based on its understanding of the law, with the CTC as a check. My job is to report what is being done, and to try to see ALL sides.
Quote
The metro is part of the city. And I live by a large freeway and have by larger ones. Businesses and communities are thriving by them. Have you been to Little Tokyo? It's right by a massive freeway and is absolutely bustling with activity and businesses making a lot of money. There's more to the picture than what you're painting.
But is Little Tokyo bustling because of the freeway? I've been there -- we often try to eat there before going to the Music Center. And parking is horrid. What makes the area active is transit -- the Gold and Blue lines.
And as for the historic impact, here's the summary from the LA Conservancy: https://www.laconservancy.org/save-places/issues/i-110-flyover/
Our Position
Along with our partners, the Conservancy was deeply concerned that the proposed I-110 Flyover Project would have profound impacts on University Park, including its rich collection of historic properties.
As a consulting party in the Section 106 process, the Conservancy submitted comments to Caltrans in October 2015. Although Caltrans acknowledges that the project would have clear direct and indirect impacts on historic resources, the current project scope was too narrow to assess the full range of impacts adequately.
We disagreed with Caltrans' finding that the proposed project would be compatible with the existing visual character of the surrounding area, including historic properties. While we appreciated efforts to minimize the visual impact through design modifications, no amount of intervention or "dressing up" can effectively lighten a structure of this scale or render it compatible with the existing community and historical context. Instead, the flyover ramp would have created visual and physical divisions within the neighborhood.
If built, the flyover would be immediately adjacent to St. John's Cathedral, which is listed on the National Register of Historic Places and designated Los Angeles Historic-Cultural Monument (HCM) #516. The new structure would create a significant visual barrier and generate new auditory impacts that could interfere with the cathedral's operations.
Overall, the proposed project would have a significant adverse effect on St. John's Cathedral's integrity of feeling, setting, and association, as well as the community at large. While there have been neighborhood changes over time, a large flyover structure would be the most dramatic and egregious change to occur.
We urged Caltrans to analyze a range of alternatives, including: 1) moving the undertaking to another site; 2) using an alternative project design; and 3) canceling the undertaking.
Further, this is from the letter announcing the No-Build choice. It would have made traffic in the neighborhood worse:
https://boardarchives.metro.net/BoardBox/2024/240216_I-110_Adams_Northern_Terminus_Improvement_Project.pdf
Preparation of the EIR began in November 2021 with the scoping period that included
public scoping meetings and meetings with project stakeholders. The EIR studied
three alternatives: no build, a flyover offramp over Adams Boulevard and Flower
Street to connect the ExpressLanes directly to Figueroa Street, and an arterial
alternative consisting of a dedicated High Occupancy Vehicle (HOV)/ ExpressLane
extending from the Adams Boulevard offramp going east on Adams, then north on Hill
Street, continuing north on Olive Street, then terminating at Olive and 18th Streets.
A key focus of the EIR was to conduct an updated traffic analysis for the three
alternatives that included new traffic counts, traffic modeling, and simulation. The
traffic analysis determined that the arterial alternative would introduce more traffic
circulating in the local roadway network by restricting left turns at several intersections,
which would reduce traffic performance overall in the study area.
The traffic analysis also studied the flyover alternative and determined that this
alternative would be expected to improve overall traffic operations performance in the
study area relative to the No‐Build and arterial ExpressLane Extension scenarios.
However, the Flyover Alternative would require a new elevated structure which would
result in significant environmental and community impacts.
Due to the aforementioned impacts, the no-build alternative has been selected by
Caltrans as the preferred alternative. Caltrans has prepared and approved a California
Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Addendum and National Environmental Policy Act
(NEPA) FONSI to document the selection of the no-build alternative for the project.
CAHWYGUY All good points you made and I get it. I'll respond here in a little bit because I have a lot to say on that.
But I will say I just saw this video from LAdot Which I thought was pretty interesting regarding their position on HLA which I mean to start a thread on.
Quote from: cahwyguy on March 15, 2024, 08:42:01 PM
The traffic analysis also studied the flyover alternative and determined that this
alternative would be expected to improve overall traffic operations performance in the
study area relative to the No‐Build and arterial ExpressLane Extension scenarios.
However, the Flyover Alternative would require a new elevated structure which would
result in significant environmental and community impacts.
Do they have an actual definition of "environmental impact"? Does it mean anything more specific than "an effect on something nearby"?
Quote from: pderocco on March 15, 2024, 11:03:13 PM
Quote from: cahwyguy on March 15, 2024, 08:42:01 PM
The traffic analysis also studied the flyover alternative and determined that this
alternative would be expected to improve overall traffic operations performance in the
study area relative to the No‐Build and arterial ExpressLane Extension scenarios.
However, the Flyover Alternative would require a new elevated structure which would
result in significant environmental and community impacts.
Do they have an actual definition of "environmental impact"? Does it mean anything more specific than "an effect on something nearby"?
I'm sure it is defined in the EIR, but I haven't had the time -- or frankly, the interest -- to dig into it. Be my guest: https://ceqanet.opr.ca.gov/2013021002/8
Quote from: cahwyguy on March 16, 2024, 12:42:49 AM
Quote from: pderocco on March 15, 2024, 11:03:13 PM
Quote from: cahwyguy on March 15, 2024, 08:42:01 PM
The traffic analysis also studied the flyover alternative and determined that this
alternative would be expected to improve overall traffic operations performance in the
study area relative to the No‐Build and arterial ExpressLane Extension scenarios.
However, the Flyover Alternative would require a new elevated structure which would
result in significant environmental and community impacts.
Do they have an actual definition of "environmental impact"? Does it mean anything more specific than "an effect on something nearby"?
I'm sure it is defined in the EIR, but I haven't had the time -- or frankly, the interest -- to dig into it. Be my guest: https://ceqanet.opr.ca.gov/2013021002/8
I would expect it to be defined elsewhere, like in the legislation that gives the agency the power to accept or reject proposals based on "environmental impact". But the phrase seems to be bandied about without any clear limit to its meaning.
Quote from: pderocco on March 18, 2024, 01:07:20 AM
Quote from: cahwyguy on March 16, 2024, 12:42:49 AM
Quote from: pderocco on March 15, 2024, 11:03:13 PM
Quote from: cahwyguy on March 15, 2024, 08:42:01 PM
The traffic analysis also studied the flyover alternative and determined that this
alternative would be expected to improve overall traffic operations performance in the
study area relative to the No‐Build and arterial ExpressLane Extension scenarios.
However, the Flyover Alternative would require a new elevated structure which would
result in significant environmental and community impacts.
Do they have an actual definition of "environmental impact"? Does it mean anything more specific than "an effect on something nearby"?
I'm sure it is defined in the EIR, but I haven't had the time -- or frankly, the interest -- to dig into it. Be my guest: https://ceqanet.opr.ca.gov/2013021002/8
I would expect it to be defined elsewhere, like in the legislation that gives the agency the power to accept or reject proposals based on "environmental impact". But the phrase seems to be bandied about without any clear limit to its meaning.
Well, given that in this case we had a Caltrans statement summarizing the EIR, they were likely not "bandying it" about, but using it in the EIR sense.
Quote from: Plutonic Panda on March 15, 2024, 03:04:45 PM
Same repeated excuse for the 710 tunnel. Same repeated excuse for the 710 expansion. Same repeated excuse for the HDC freeway.
Obviously there's going to be community impacts. These express lanes should be built into downtown and along the 101 Calabasas.
So what you're basically saying is we should ignore what communities want. So what if communities are impacted, as long as it's not yours, right?
Quote from: cahwyguy on March 15, 2024, 05:32:22 PM
I also think we've been insensitive to the communities impacted.
Based on some of Panda's posts in the past, I very much get the "as long as this doesn't impact my community, I don't care" sort of vibe.
Quote from: cahwyguy on March 15, 2024, 05:32:22 PM
Building wider freeways helps the folks going long distances, but is horrible for the businesses in the communities they pass through, which lose loads of business.
The somewhat recent 101 bypass of Willits is a good testament to this. There were several articles about lost business. This is also one of the reasons why some of the northern communities like Eureka have been against bypasses.
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on March 15, 2024, 05:57:31 PM
Quote from: Plutonic Panda on March 15, 2024, 05:52:34 PM
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on March 15, 2024, 05:50:56 PM
Quote from: Plutonic Panda on March 15, 2024, 05:47:03 PM
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on March 15, 2024, 05:43:52 PM
Like it or not, the Division of Highways is long gone. Rightly or wrongly the dynamics in this state have shifted towards more diverse transit (especially in big urban areas) and reducing single vehicle commuting. Will the current trend be something that works out in the long run?...time will only tell.
That's great. I'm totally in support of better mass transit options. I use it every single day. I just don't like the path we're going on where we're completing neglecting car infrastructure. I plan on starting a thread discussing measures HLA because I have a lot of concerns and questions on that.
Where did I say that you should support it or infer that I did?
I never said you did. I'm clarifying my position.
Then what are you doing complaining about it this forum for? Shouldn't you be out trying to start campaigning for local representatives to see things your way? I'd argue that is how things started to turn towards where they are now beginning the late 1960s. It is so easy to complain on a social media platform, it way harder to actually try to change things.
Do you recall what I said about Kernals12? Why do you think that I give him such a hard time when he whines on this board? That kid is the poster example of internet whining and not taking actual initiative to do anything.
Exactly. I read Panda's post and he is always claiming how easy it is to do this, or do that, or why this shouldn't happen, that shouldn't happen. That's exactly what civil engagement is for. If he isn't already doing it, Panda should be going to the public meetings, should be trying to get measures on ballots, get public support. That's how things start. Whining on a message board won't do anything. If he has ideas about what should be done, go public.
EDIT: I read that he won't go to public meetings or do civic engagement due to "anxiety." Okay, fine, but the world isn't going to wait for you to get over that.
I see it all the time on my Facebook feed. People complaining left and right about all the things that happen in the world, then I learn they never vote, they never go to public meetings, they never do anything except just complain. Sorry, but people like that are going to get left behind in the world.
Given all the discussion of late, I just had to post this satire piece from Madison WI (and yes, I did save it for the highway headlines, so you'll get to enjoy it again): https://www.dailycardinal.com/article/2024/03/the-beet-an-ode-to-freedom-more-lanes
Start of the day
The alarm was set for seven. I woke up at eight.
I pressed snooze too many times, and now I'm going to be late.
No time for breakfast. Not a full shower today.
My shirt is a bit wrinkled, but I guess that's okay.
I expect traffic to be a nightmare, mentally it will cause me pain.
I know what would fix this. Please just give us one more lane.
Leave my apartment, pat my pockets, triple check the locks.
Start my car, let out a deep sigh and affirm myself with "my life rocks."
Oh jeez. Oh man. I forgot my phone. Today is going to be scary.
Turn on the radio instead of listening to my playlist. Traffic report tells me to be wary.
Roads are backed up. Every day feels the same.
I know what would fix this. Please just give us one more lane.
I attempt to turn out onto the street to a long wait.
It's 8:50 now, I'm going to be more than late.
I need to come up with some excuse; we have a podcast taping this morning.
Something grand and believable that makes waking up late not boring.
Finally move onto the street to immediately have to stop. It's making me feel insane.
I know what would fix this. Please just give us one more lane.
The commute
Time's continuously slipping, and whatever excuse I can come up with will be poor.
Cars upon cars flooding the streets, to get over is a war.
There are too many people. I tell myself thinking I'm not part of the problem.
There's a simple solution that can fix everything. I know what can solve them
all. One more lane will make all the pain and strife disappear.
But I'm worried about the NIMBYs and their refusal to hear
any solution that would fix the city would be turned down again.
I know what would fix this. Please just give us one more lane.
Our cars are the ticket to living life in the city.
Public infrastructure is okay, but Metro is frankly shitty.
You tell me to just wait for the BRT, that will make everything better.
But more buses and restricted lanes will cause cars to fetter.
We can be so much freer if we use eminent domain.
I know what would fix this. Please just give us one more lane.
Wind blasts through my hair, endlessly I'll pay
for gas and maintenance because I don't see another way.
You mention walkable cities but think of the cars. Where will they go?
Parking is already hard enough for my gas-guzzling Tahoe.
Criminal speeding with poor visibility in the pouring rain.
I know what would fix this. Please just give us one more lane.
Lobby for more freedom
I decided to be the change I want to see.
I'll go door-to-door knocking for neighbors to hear my plea.
A Common Council meeting is where I'll state my case.
Register for public comment and cry for the need of more space.
"Madison's leaders," after a 2:55 ode to cars I say, "we need to spend a—"
Cut off. My time is up. My comment wasn't pertinent to the agenda.
Surely my passion for freedom will garner me fame.
I know what would fix this. Please just give us one more lane.
But yet there is a chance. This year is an election year, so I'll throw in my hat.
Since no one else will think of the cars, I'll step up to bat.
"Take down the parks, bike lanes and neighborhoods!"
It sounds concerning to most, but I'm running for the public's good.
I will be a single-issue candidate with one thing centered for my campaign.
I know what would fix this. Please just give us one more lane.
I didn't win. My cause fell on deaf ears.
Now for the next two years, every driver will live in fear.
As long as I breathe, my mission will be just.
Next election cycle, I know what to do. It won't be a bust.
I promise to cut down on all of our commutes throughout Dane.
I know what would fix this. Please just give us one more lane.
Quote from: Quillz on March 22, 2024, 05:23:18 PM
Quote from: cahwyguy on March 15, 2024, 05:32:22 PM
I also think we've been insensitive to the communities impacted.
Based on some of Panda's posts in the past, I very much get the "as long as this doesn't impact my community, I don't care" sort of vibe.
This sort of take is exactly why I respect people like Max's post and CAHWYGUY But I really don't much care what you have to say because the vibe I get from you is you're full of fucking shit. The other two posters seem like they have very valid points to make In interested in having a productive conversation. I'm just not vocalizing myself and the way that I should be. You just seem like you disagree with what I have to say entirely and are going along with the façade of you being in the middle of the of the road.
I do care about peoples communities, and I do understand that these types of facilities could negatively impact them, and I support whatever measures can be taken to lessen those impacts.
The only issue I have with Max's is, I can only kind of halfway understand what he saying. I get that there is more than I can do than complain on this form. And I do just that. And yes, it is also true that a lot of people on this form are probably more pro highway than they are anti-highway. That doesn't mean that they support in every highway proposal and do understand that some highways can be destructive and detrimental to their communities. Induce is a real thing and is problematic. Mass Transit is a great alternative to cars and absolutely should be focused on much more especially in the United States than we currently do.
These are all things that I agree with and understand and I'm sure the other two posters who I've been talking to here would likely agree with as well, though I'm not gonna put words in their mouths.
When it comes to quills, I generally don't understand what the fuck this person's point is and what they're trying to make other than the fact, they just don't agree with what I'm saying so they're just repeating themselves like a record. I do this to some degree as I beat a dead horse on some issues and I'm not gonna say that I don't. We are all hypocrites in one way or another and if you're gonna sit here and try and convince me or not, then I will no longer take you seriously. Care or don't care about that I really don't give a shit.
But besides some of my elected representatives and I even just went to my local council office here in Hollywood district 13, where nobody was even there, writing to my senators, talking to city planners, I'm open to more suggestions here and Max has provided many great ones as has CAHWYGUY but you provided none.
Now the only other thing I could think to do would be to really go up a step and start to try and put myself in the public image of settling down the anti-highway crowd and pushing for more freeway projects and trying to get people to understand why we need these roads in the continue to widen them even though it may not get the exact results we want. There is no way on God's green earth in this state ever going to repeal a bill intended to help the environment, whether it really does or not.
I'm trying to get into an industry that has nothing to do with roads or transit. I would have to align myself with a certain ideology that could compromise my career if I were to go full out with picket signs starting Facebook groups websites and a grassroots movement to try encounter the transit anti-Car crowd.
Quote from: Quillz on March 22, 2024, 05:20:04 PM
Quote from: Plutonic Panda on March 15, 2024, 03:04:45 PM
Same repeated excuse for the 710 tunnel. Same repeated excuse for the 710 expansion. Same repeated excuse for the HDC freeway.
Obviously there's going to be community impacts. These express lanes should be built into downtown and along the 101 Calabasas.
So what you're basically saying is we should ignore what communities want. So what if communities are impacted, as long as it's not yours, right?
And enjoy it because this is the last statement I'm gonna respond to you you on because you just don't seem like you wanna have a genuine conversation.
I live in Hollywood. If completing the BEVERLYHills Freeway Met tearing out 300 feet of right away all along Sunset Boulevard so it could tie in to the original proposed alignment. I would completely support it. I don't see what's happening now with all this gentrification really being much different from how changing the community from the way it used to be.
I'm only on here bitching as much as I am because my community is being impacted by all these lane reductions removals of slip lanes no right turn on red bike boxes and bike lanes that are hardly ever being used and now Hollywood Boulevard is being proposed for a road diet.
I went on what consider an unhinged rant, and two other posters who seem to be much more knowledgeable and reasonable than you with me on this publicly and I realized what I said could've been worded much better. And they had great points to make. You're just sitting here making antagonistic replies again.
And your ridiculous fucking assumption has no bearing in reality.
Quote from: Plutonic Panda on March 23, 2024, 01:01:34 AM
Quote from: Quillz on March 22, 2024, 05:23:18 PM
Quote from: cahwyguy on March 15, 2024, 05:32:22 PM
I also think we've been insensitive to the communities impacted.
Based on some of Panda's posts in the past, I very much get the "as long as this doesn't impact my community, I don't care" sort of vibe.
This sort of take is exactly why I respect people like Max's post and CAHWYGUY But I really don't much care what you have to say because the vibe I get from you is you're full of fucking shit. The other two posters seem like they have very valid points to make In interested in having a productive conversation. I'm just not vocalizing myself and the way that I should be. You just seem like you disagree with what I have to say entirely and are going along with the façade of you being in the middle of the of the road.
I do care about peoples communities, and I do understand that these types of facilities could negatively impact them, and I support whatever measures can be taken to lessen those impacts.
Then don't quote my posts and respond. If you truly don't care.
And oftentimes not building or expanding freeways is how you prevent negatively impacting them.
Quote from: Plutonic Panda on March 23, 2024, 01:13:17 AM
I live in Hollywood. If completing the BEVERLYHills Freeway Met tearing out 300 feet of right away all along Sunset Boulevard so it could tie in to the original proposed alignment. I would completely support it. I don't see what's happening now with all this gentrification really being much different from how changing the community from the way it used to be.
I'm only on here bitching as much as I am because my community is being impacted by all these lane reductions removals of slip lanes no right turn on red bike boxes and bike lanes that are hardly ever being used and now Hollywood Boulevard is being proposed for a road diet.
I'd just like to address this a little. I can see the various sides here. I live over near the Northridge Mall, where Wilbur was put on a road diet quite a few years ago, adding bike lanes -- and from what I saw in the HLA interface, there are similar plans for Nordhoff. We've also seen bike lanes on Reseda, and reductions in street parking. We're also getting an increased number of low-income housing projects.
I'm also familiar with the Hollywood issues. If you look at the blog side of my site, you'll see I attend a lot of theatre. Going to the Holywood Fringe Festival https://www.hollywoodfringe.org/ pre-pandemic, I would curse the lack of parking and how difficult it is to get around that area (especially when there was something going on and Hollywood Blvd was closed). I'm also a subscriber at the Pantages (we have tickets tonight for "Chicago"; expect a revew sometime tomorrow, possibly after we add a new car to the fold so the old car can go to my daughter). When we go out to the Pantages -- or the Dolby -- we see how poor Hollywood Blvd is for pedestrians.
THere's a key different between these areas: Density and transit.
With respect to the bike lanes on Wilbur, they are little used. But they are used, and traffic, over time, has gotten used to the lane restrictions. We do have our idiots who treat the bike lanes as a driving lane and zoom through. My wife hates the road diet; I try to see all sides and can live with it. Even thought it would decrease travel time for me, I don't think we should build the valley's unbuilt freeways: Route 64 roughtly across Chase, and Route 14 roughly down Reseda. Yes, they would improve the 405. But I think they would change the nature of the valley, and I'm not sure I'd want a freeway that close to me. What we need here in the valley is the bus service to increase. There isn't the density of bus lines that would making increased housing with less parking work. Most importantly, there's also no bus service N of Devonshire -- the north valley is very very poorly served by Metro.
Oh, and a PS: If you want more folks to use Metro, make it clean and have the reputation of being safe. Without that, people won't want to ride it.
As for Hollywood itself: I don't have a problem with the plan to put Hollywood Blvd on a road diet. The old adage has always been that the best way to get to Hollywood is to take Franklin, and very few use Hollywood as the street to transit the area. It is a tourist street, and in the tourist areas we need to make it safe for pedestrians, safer folks folks on scooters and bikes, and less congested with less turning. But those changes have to come with changes in the paralleling and cross streets to improve throughput. There needs to be more parking, and more affordable parking structures (we're going to the Pantages tonight. Parking, as my wife cannot yet walk Metro, is $25. As soon as we can get back to Metro, we'll be taking it from North Hollywood. As reference: Parking at the Ahmanson is $9). So the plan needs to be more than just a single street.
Further, addressing the congestion needs to extend all the way down to Santa Monica Blvd. Again: There needs to be plans for more lots and structures to serve those neighborhoods, at affordable parking prices.
Should they build the BH Freeway. No. I think we would lose far too much in terms of the impact for the community. What we need to do is make transit more successful and more useful. That means increasing the density of transit, increasing the frequency of transit, and increasing the perceived safety of transit. This is true for both the city and the valley.
We see Metro is very inclined to do the road diets and focus on active improvements. Yet when it comes to realistic transit improvements, they are shinkflation. They reduce frequency and density in many areas, and they don't attack the perception of safety, because that costs real, ongoing funds.
This is obstensiby a ROADS forum, and I've been going on about transit. But the overall TRANSPORTATION picture needs to be viewed from all angles. I think with respect to headlines and proposals (which is what started this discussion), it is important to view and understand the issues from all angles: roads, transit, parking. It is important to see and appreciate the impacts on all stakeholders: commuters, residents, local businesses, pedestrians, bike riders. With that, you can come to an understanding of perhaps why particular decisions are being made. You don't have to agree with them. But with the understanding, you can at least better craft arguments to support your position instead of becoming Johnny One-Note (who gets that reference?) -- which alas, quite a few on this forum have become.
Remember that the first step on changing minds is actually listening to the other side, understanding their positions and why they take them, and seeing perhaps the bigger picture and all the components involved. In the speak I use at work: You need to take an Enterprise architecture view, not just look at a single system.
And while my posts probably don't reflect it, I'm more like cahwyguy in that I'm kind of middle of the road (no pun intended). I don't see the value in being all-in or all-out when it comes to things like road diets, mass transit, etc. Like most things in life, it's trial-and-error. Sometimes you have to try things to see what works, and what doesn't.
And there are examples of things being tried and not working. Remember the bike and walking lanes on the Bay Bridge? Well, after four years or so, the bikers and walkers never came, and now it's likely those will be turned back over to vehicle traffic. Remember the people that wanted to get rid of the Marina Freeway? Yeah, that fizzled out pretty fast.
I agree with the other poster who talked about changes being made in San Francisco. And how the voters wanted it, so it's on them. I agree with that. You let communities make decisions, and then they have to deal with the consequences. If it ends up not working out, it's up to them to change it to something that does. California also has a pretty robust recall system, and it can always be used. Got a local politician trying to force a road diet against community opposition? Recall them. Even the mere threat or attempt can be enough to dissuade them.
So I should point out that I don't actually disagree with Panda on a lot of points. What I disagree with is what seems to be the automatic rejection of anything that is something other than "widen this." You have to let things play out. I don't have access to all the data, I don't do studies. Just because I may not like it or understand it doesn't mean there aren't reasons behind it. Like where I am, it seems Ventura Boulevard is undergoing one of sorts. But they're also adding parking lots and bike lanes where there weren't any previously. And I can tell you from experience if this cuts down on the amount of slow drivers looking for a spot and/or keeps them from cutting across traffic to get a space, I'm all for it.
Quoteand I'm not sure I'd want a freeway that close to me.
And this is the kind of thing I've said for a long time. I feel a lot of pro-freeway people are most likely in communities that would not be impacted by freeways. Not having to deal with eminent domain, widening, and the issues that can come from it. Sure, some might very well be, and there are advantages to having freeways. But there are always trade-offs, always.
cahwyguy, I'll respond more in depth to what you said because you made a ton of good points but I'm on the red line right now heading to work. Just walked Hollywood from sycamore to the highland station. That area definitely needs more pedestrian space but that can be done without removing lanes of traffic.
You are also completely right about safety on metro needing to be emphasized more. I think that is about their number one issue at the moment other than needing to focus on maintenance and reliability. Instead they'd rather spend a couple billion on a glorified van nuys streetcar.
Regarding this middle of the road thing I don't know how more middle of the road I can get as I support all modes and think there is an extremely lot we can do besides removing lanes of traffic and road diets. In some cases they are appropriate. Others not so much. Sunset between Gower and La Brea only flows better than Hollywood because it hasn't been gentrified yet and that's about to change. Hollywood basically can become a free flowing road compared to Franklin during bowl events. Selma is halfway gentrified and becomes a traffic locked nightmare quite often. Yucca already has through traffic banned except bikes and peds.
There is no reason to just screw up traffic as bad as possible to "encourage" people to take cars. Build the tens of billions of proposed metro rail lines and then let's talk about reducing car dependency. Until then we need to keep our lanes of traffic especially on Hollywood and Fountain.
I have much more to say though and will later.
Another day another major street like Olive Ave. have a lane reduction proposed: https://ktla.com/news/local-news/changes-to-olive-avenue-at-center-of-controversy-over-metro-bus-route-plans/
Another day of me saying "I'll believe it when it happens." Proposals are commonplace, doesn't mean it will happen. See the Marina Freeway proposal.
And you said you are middle of the road and support all modes so I assume you will give this the fair due diligence? There will be public comment and viewpoints from both sides. Best to let things play out and see what happens. Proposals and reality are very different things.
There's a lot to be said about the poor state of public transporation in LA area. It needs to be safer. Buses need better frequency and fewer stops. Also, LA has a big problem of "regionalism" where buses do not go all the way to their logical extension, but instead force a transfer to another bus system like Santa Monica or Culver at a city boundary.
Metrolink needs to be more frequent. This should be the "bones" of a good transit system.
The LA rail system is growing in the right areas, it's just taking too long. And because of that, it is not the right time to wage a war on cars by removing parking and driving lanes for bike lanes.
Bike routes are better for the more minor streets. Away from traffic.
Quote from: mrsman on March 27, 2024, 07:59:01 PMAlso, LA has a big problem of "regionalism" where buses do not go all the way to their logical extension, but instead force a transfer to another bus system like Santa Monica or Culver at a city boundary.
When did that start? I used to live up there 7 years ago, and LA buses went all the way out to Ocean Ave.
Quote from: mrsman on March 27, 2024, 07:59:01 PMAlso, LA has a big problem of "regionalism" where buses do not go all the way to their logical extension, but instead force a transfer to another bus system like Santa Monica or Culver at a city boundary.
Nope. LA Metro busses go to places like Santa Monica and Culver City without transfer. Look at the route map. https://www.dropbox.com/scl/fi/ukpc5uysiuv3zn5kwsr4c/24-0791_blt_system_map_47x47.5_DCR.pdf?rlkey=o2o57lct2nsyysfeeceyi7hap&dl=0 . Cities with their own municipal lines provide better coverages in their cities, but Metro services them as well (a good example would be something like the 4, or it used to be the 4, along Santa Monica Blvd). And, those other cities lines run in Los Angeles proper.
LA is building subway lines slow because they are very very expensive and require lots of engineering.
Quote from: cahwyguy on March 23, 2024, 11:33:16 AMQuote from: Plutonic Panda on March 23, 2024, 01:13:17 AMI live in Hollywood. If completing the BEVERLYHills Freeway Met tearing out 300 feet of right away all along Sunset Boulevard so it could tie in to the original proposed alignment. I would completely support it. I don't see what's happening now with all this gentrification really being much different from how changing the community from the way it used to be.
I'm only on here bitching as much as I am because my community is being impacted by all these lane reductions removals of slip lanes no right turn on red bike boxes and bike lanes that are hardly ever being used and now Hollywood Boulevard is being proposed for a road diet.
I'd just like to address this a little. I can see the various sides here. I live over near the Northridge Mall, where Wilbur was put on a road diet quite a few years ago, adding bike lanes -- and from what I saw in the HLA interface, there are similar plans for Nordhoff. We've also seen bike lanes on Reseda, and reductions in street parking. We're also getting an increased number of low-income housing projects.
I'm also familiar with the Hollywood issues. If you look at the blog side of my site, you'll see I attend a lot of theatre. Going to the Holywood Fringe Festival https://www.hollywoodfringe.org/ pre-pandemic, I would curse the lack of parking and how difficult it is to get around that area (especially when there was something going on and Hollywood Blvd was closed). I'm also a subscriber at the Pantages (we have tickets tonight for "Chicago"; expect a revew sometime tomorrow, possibly after we add a new car to the fold so the old car can go to my daughter). When we go out to the Pantages -- or the Dolby -- we see how poor Hollywood Blvd is for pedestrians.
THere's a key different between these areas: Density and transit.
With respect to the bike lanes on Wilbur, they are little used. But they are used, and traffic, over time, has gotten used to the lane restrictions. We do have our idiots who treat the bike lanes as a driving lane and zoom through. My wife hates the road diet; I try to see all sides and can live with it. Even thought it would decrease travel time for me, I don't think we should build the valley's unbuilt freeways: Route 64 roughtly across Chase, and Route 14 roughly down Reseda. Yes, they would improve the 405. But I think they would change the nature of the valley, and I'm not sure I'd want a freeway that close to me. What we need here in the valley is the bus service to increase. There isn't the density of bus lines that would making increased housing with less parking work. Most importantly, there's also no bus service N of Devonshire -- the north valley is very very poorly served by Metro.
Oh, and a PS: If you want more folks to use Metro, make it clean and have the reputation of being safe. Without that, people won't want to ride it.
As for Hollywood itself: I don't have a problem with the plan to put Hollywood Blvd on a road diet. The old adage has always been that the best way to get to Hollywood is to take Franklin, and very few use Hollywood as the street to transit the area. It is a tourist street, and in the tourist areas we need to make it safe for pedestrians, safer folks folks on scooters and bikes, and less congested with less turning. But those changes have to come with changes in the paralleling and cross streets to improve throughput. There needs to be more parking, and more affordable parking structures (we're going to the Pantages tonight. Parking, as my wife cannot yet walk Metro, is $25. As soon as we can get back to Metro, we'll be taking it from North Hollywood. As reference: Parking at the Ahmanson is $9). So the plan needs to be more than just a single street.
Further, addressing the congestion needs to extend all the way down to Santa Monica Blvd. Again: There needs to be plans for more lots and structures to serve those neighborhoods, at affordable parking prices.
Should they build the BH Freeway. No. I think we would lose far too much in terms of the impact for the community. What we need to do is make transit more successful and more useful. That means increasing the density of transit, increasing the frequency of transit, and increasing the perceived safety of transit. This is true for both the city and the valley.
We see Metro is very inclined to do the road diets and focus on active improvements. Yet when it comes to realistic transit improvements, they are shinkflation. They reduce frequency and density in many areas, and they don't attack the perception of safety, because that costs real, ongoing funds.
This is obstensiby a ROADS forum, and I've been going on about transit. But the overall TRANSPORTATION picture needs to be viewed from all angles. I think with respect to headlines and proposals (which is what started this discussion), it is important to view and understand the issues from all angles: roads, transit, parking. It is important to see and appreciate the impacts on all stakeholders: commuters, residents, local businesses, pedestrians, bike riders. With that, you can come to an understanding of perhaps why particular decisions are being made. You don't have to agree with them. But with the understanding, you can at least better craft arguments to support your position instead of becoming Johnny One-Note (who gets that reference?) -- which alas, quite a few on this forum have become.
Remember that the first step on changing minds is actually listening to the other side, understanding their positions and why they take them, and seeing perhaps the bigger picture and all the components involved. In the speak I use at work: You need to take an Enterprise architecture view, not just look at a single system.
By the way to add to this, I absolutely think the Beverly Hills Freeway should be built but as a tolled tunnel. But even as a way to get around on the west side, I would gladly settle for an elevated freeway.
Is that ideal Absolutely not. I'd love to have the peace and quiet of living in the country, but smack dab in the middle of Hollywood. But hey, I guess that K Line northern extension will be coming in the 2040s. WeHo and Metro Claim may have plans to expedite that. We'll see.
Ideally, they would add about 4 to 5 subway lines around the west side. But LA is such a huge city other parts of the city deserve investments as well. And I've gotten into this argument with many transit enthusiast who absolutely despise the gold line along the foothills.
Me personally I'd love to see that train go all the way to big bear one day.
As far as taking Hollywood Boulevard goes or accessing who the walk of fame, I suppose if you're local, you may take Franklin or Sunset and find somewhere to park, But I've never heard of a tourist doing something like that unless the road closures need to bypass.
Quote from: cahwyguy on March 27, 2024, 09:25:33 PMQuote from: mrsman on March 27, 2024, 07:59:01 PMAlso, LA has a big problem of "regionalism" where buses do not go all the way to their logical extension, but instead force a transfer to another bus system like Santa Monica or Culver at a city boundary.
Nope. LA Metro busses go to places like Santa Monica and Culver City without transfer. Look at the route map. https://www.dropbox.com/scl/fi/ukpc5uysiuv3zn5kwsr4c/24-0791_blt_system_map_47x47.5_DCR.pdf?rlkey=o2o57lct2nsyysfeeceyi7hap&dl=0 . Cities with their own municipal lines provide better coverages in their cities, but Metro services them as well (a good example would be something like the 4, or it used to be the 4, along Santa Monica Blvd). And, those other cities lines run in Los Angeles proper.
LA is building subway lines slow because they are very very expensive and require lots of engineering.
It's also important to note that Santa Monica big blue bus goes out of the city and also picks up and drops off people as well. I use their bus system a lot and often times the operators won't even request you to pay your fares. They're much more respectful and helpful than LA Metro operators. Same with DASH. But I don't use DASH as much because sometimes I get confused with where their lines go.
In LA I use the Transit app and it's useful for the most part but sometimes it gets DASH wrong. And then Metro has these weird routes for the two and four buses were some of them will continue on west and others will terminate at UCLA or make a left turn on Sepulveda and then loop back around to downtown.
Personally, I wish LA would focus on heavy rail, such as areas like the Vermont corridor that they just released public comment on which I mean to post. Same with the west side. The valley in south-central should be more BRT oriented.
Quote from: Plutonic Panda on March 28, 2024, 03:41:54 PMPersonally, I wish LA would focus on heavy rail, such as areas like the Vermont corridor that they just released public comment on which I mean to post. Same with the west side. The valley in south-central should be more BRT oriented.
Might have been like this if not for the car industry. At one point LA (particularly the valley) had a cable car system similar to SF. If you've ever wondered why Sherman Way is as wide as it is, it's because the trolleys used to run down the center. There used to be trolleys and gondolas that would take you up to Mt. Wilson. But lobbying is a powerful force. There was a pretty strong mass transit attitude during the first half of the 20th century, but in many ways freeways and cars put an end to that. Thus the attempts to make better bus lines, Metro lines, etc. is in some ways an attempt to return to what was once was.
Fair question, why are old school street car and interurban lines getting a free pass from people nowadays? Most of those lines became rapidly unprofitable once the car really became something accessible to the average consumer. Blaming car companies for marketing a then superior product isn't exactly the conspiracy many want to make it out to be.
Quote from: Plutonic Panda on March 28, 2024, 03:41:54 PMQuote from: cahwyguy on March 27, 2024, 09:25:33 PMQuote from: mrsman on March 27, 2024, 07:59:01 PMAlso, LA has a big problem of "regionalism" where buses do not go all the way to their logical extension, but instead force a transfer to another bus system like Santa Monica or Culver at a city boundary.
Nope. LA Metro busses go to places like Santa Monica and Culver City without transfer. Look at the route map. https://www.dropbox.com/scl/fi/ukpc5uysiuv3zn5kwsr4c/24-0791_blt_system_map_47x47.5_DCR.pdf?rlkey=o2o57lct2nsyysfeeceyi7hap&dl=0 . Cities with their own municipal lines provide better coverages in their cities, but Metro services them as well (a good example would be something like the 4, or it used to be the 4, along Santa Monica Blvd). And, those other cities lines run in Los Angeles proper.
LA is building subway lines slow because they are very very expensive and require lots of engineering.
It's also important to note that Santa Monica big blue bus goes out of the city and also picks up and drops off people as well. I use their bus system a lot and often times the operators won't even request you to pay your fares. They're much more respectful and helpful than LA Metro operators. Same with DASH. But I don't use DASH as much because sometimes I get confused with where their lines go.
In LA I use the Transit app and it's useful for the most part but sometimes it gets DASH wrong. And then Metro has these weird routes for the two and four buses were some of them will continue on west and others will terminate at UCLA or make a left turn on Sepulveda and then loop back around to downtown.
Personally, I wish LA would focus on heavy rail, such as areas like the Vermont corridor that they just released public comment on which I mean to post. Same with the west side. The valley in south-central should be more BRT oriented.
That is true.
2-Sunset used to go from Downtown to the Ocean. It now ends in Westwood.
4-Santa Monica does go btwn Downtown LA and Santa Monica, but as PP mentioned about half the trips end at Westwood Blvd.
20 -Wilshire At one time, this bus also went btwn Downtwon LA and Santa Monica, but for the most part that only happens in the evening.
720 - Wilshire Rapid, like 4, about half the buses go beyond Westwood Blvd, but most do not. This bus will likely be put out of commission when the D line subway to the VA hospital is completed. And there will still need to be a bus connection to make the last 2 miles to the ocean.
33- Venice most buses make it between Downtown and Venice, with about half continuing to Santa Monica.
The E train does go between Santa Monica and Downtown LA.
But that's it.
The following are the east-west local buses that emanate from Downtown LA that do not go all the way to the Ocean:
2- Sunset, 10-Temple/Melrose, 14-Beverly, 16-W 3rd, 20-Wilshire, 28-Olympic, 30-Pico, 35-Washington, 37-Adams, 38-Jefferson.
Let's say I'm at Pan Pacific Park at Beverly, half-way between La Brea and Fairfax. I'm close to 14, but kind of far from a N/S bus line. If I wanted to get to the ocean, I would need to take at least three buses (or walk to 3rd or Melrose and take two, since those bus lines at least connect with 4 in West Hollywood). This does not seem convenient.
It would seem to me that if there was no Santa Monica of Culver bus systems that some of these buses would continue along Montana, Ocean Park, Olympic, Pico, Washington, Culver Blvd, National, or Jefferson towards the Ocean directly. A lot more convenient.
Ideally, the entire westside between Downtown and the Ocean would be a bus grid along main streets with all e-w buses stretching from Downtown to the Ocean, and all n-s buses stretching from Sunset (or Hollywood) to at least the C line. Every location between Downtown, Santa Monica, 110/105, and LAX would be reachable with just one transfer. This is not the way the LA system is set up at the moment.
Quote from: Quillz on March 28, 2024, 05:17:17 PMQuote from: Plutonic Panda on March 28, 2024, 03:41:54 PMPersonally, I wish LA would focus on heavy rail, such as areas like the Vermont corridor that they just released public comment on which I mean to post. Same with the west side. The valley in south-central should be more BRT oriented.
Might have been like this if not for the car industry. At one point LA (particularly the valley) had a cable car system similar to SF. If you've ever wondered why Sherman Way is as wide as it is, it's because the trolleys used to run down the center. There used to be trolleys and gondolas that would take you up to Mt. Wilson. But lobbying is a powerful force. There was a pretty strong mass transit attitude during the first half of the 20th century, but in many ways freeways and cars put an end to that. Thus the attempts to make better bus lines, Metro lines, etc. is in some ways an attempt to return to what was once was.
It also seems like that system went downhill because the usage went down as well from the way I understand it. It's more than just the car industries trying to buy it out so people can't use it.
but I am familiar with the red line system. I didn't know about the road width.
Quote from: Quillz on March 28, 2024, 05:17:17 PMMight have been like this if not for the car industry. At one point LA (particularly the valley) had a cable car system similar to SF. If you've ever wondered why Sherman Way is as wide as it is, it's because the trolleys used to run down the center. There used to be trolleys and gondolas that would take you up to Mt. Wilson.
@Quillz is incorrect. In addition to being a roadgeek, I'm interested in the history of rail in Los Angeles. I've been a member out at Orange Empire Rwy Museum (now SCRM, https://socalrailway.org/) since 1985.
Yes, there were cable cars in Los Angeles. Never were they in the San Fernando Valley; they were concentrated in downtown LA, and only for a few years. THey were not financially successful.
I don't recall PE ever running to Mt. Wilson. The Mt. Lowe line did run to the trailhead (see https://www.erha.org/penml.htm ) PE never ran gondolas. The Mt. Lowe line consisted of a conventional trolley line, a funicular, and a narrow gague line to the tavern at the top.
The density of PE and rail in the valley was extremely poor -- perhaps about as good as Metro's rail system might eventually be: There was the line that ran to North Hollywood through the pass, and the line that ran along Sherman Way (now Chandler), N. Sherman Way (now Van Nuys), and Sherman Way (now, uh, Sherman Way) to Owensmouth (now Canoga Park). There was a branch that continued up N Sherman Way to Parthenia, curved, across to Sepulveda, up to Brand, curved, and into San Fernando. That was it for much of the valley, although there were more lines to Burbank and Glendale. The Brand branch was gone by the 1930s, at least for passengers (it still served freight); the SFV line by the early 1950s.
What killed the rail? Not the cars or any conspiracy, but money. The PUC refused to allow rate increases for the rail lines, and without rate increases, PE couldn't improve vehicles. Many cars running in the 1950s were coaches from the 1910s. The PCC cars helped on some lines, but no cars had air conditioning or good suspension. Don't believe me? You can still ride them out at OERM/SCRM. Further, the streets were getting crowded, any many lines still ran shared with street traffic. There were a few private RoWs -- Sherman Way, Santa Monica, San Vicente, Glendale, Huntington. PE increasingly fought back by shutting down lines and moving to buses (although in the LATL and first MTA eras, the PUC didn't allow any rail line closures, although their weren't many left then).
One might argue that what killed the PE was that it was never designed as a transit line -- that wasn't its purpose. It was designed to sell real estate (1st), move local freight (2nd), and perhaps transport workers (3rd). Getting cars off the street wasn't its goal. The density of the city it helped create didn't support that. The road network and cars stitched together the multiple suburbs and communities in the LA basin into a rough conglomerate, and the legal decisions regarding water made it all one city (you wanted the water, you had to join the city). As always, no history is clean.
Los Angeles doesn't have the density to support traditional rail transit, and just like with cybersecurity (my professional specialty), attempting to retrofit is doesn't work. Adding subways and rail at this point is far too expensive, and will always be too little to late. One answer, which is slowly happening despite the NIMBYs, is to increase density along existing corridors, and improve those corridors.
So, folks like
@Plutonic Panda will argue that widening and increasing roads will be the answer, and more freeways (such as the unbuilt ones) will solve things. That's not true either, as new freeways are as expensive as new rail lines, and often impact more people at the surface (really bad PR). Widening only improves things temporarily; I don't think anyone can point to a widening of a road in an urban area that has improved throughput after 5-6 years. There is concern about increased greenhouse gases (and increasing traffic doesn't help that -- even moving to electric doesn't help depending on where the power is sourced). The current approach seems to be pushing people to do more locally (less VMT), but is fighting against an existing infrastructure that encourages road use simply by where we place businesses and commerce.
There is no good or easy solution. Well, perhaps there is: Electric flying cars. Didn't they promise us those? But lacking that, on the ground, none of our answers will work. As such, many of our debates here are just pissing into the wind (but be careful lest the wind change direction).
The answers we are going to have are going to be incremental: An AUX lane here, a new rail lane there (cough, East SF Valley), some new bus infrastructure (cough, the new lanes on Sepulveda), new bike lines in flatlands, reworked areas for active transportation where there are loads of pedestrians, moving the personal vehicles to side streets and having only transit in those areas (and making that transit more frictionless in terms of ease of use) (cough, Hollywood); having more rail between the ports and logistic/transfer hubs, reducing truck traffic; and, yes, perhaps even congestion pricing, although that hurts some segments of the community disproportionally.
Daniel
Perhaps I should clarify. I don't believe I've ever said that widening freeways will solve things nor should they be the only answer. But adding lanes does help manage traffic, especially during off-peak hours it could prevent the ridiculous back ups during midday and the weekend. Now you're not ever going to build the road or a highway big enough to deal with peak hour traffic, Beach traffic on PCH, etc.
I believe you also said you were a bit of a preservationist, but then your answer is for higher density building which wouldn't necessitate the destruction of older buildings?
And I'm against building higher density developments for the sake of developing a rapid metro system.
Though at times I may go on rants, which I need to work on that may make me less credible. I can understand the frustration of NIMBYs. The 241 extension being a prime example. I would've used that road and I know a lot of other people would have as well. It's also a connection you would look at on a map and think why the hell was not built. Now I think those who live in Pasadena and South Pasadena can say somewhat of the same thing, but they can be persuaded with people who can show their arguments that the TBM machines were going to damage historic buildings. We're just malarkey.
Those next to the 241 Extensions actually have good points to make about road noise and they're being some issues of more Car infrastructure putting off toxic fumes around the high school, which is where the interchange at the 5 was going to be. But frankly, I think it still should've been built.
Those are projects I'm advocating for. Am I seriously pushing for the construction of the Beverly Hills Freeway? Absolutely not. What I like to see it built, but I know it's not happening. I just use that as an example because someone here said I don't care about what's built so as long as it's not in my community and that's a bunch of bullshit.
But for one thing, you've already basically answered your own question about one of the big issues with transit in Los Angeles. And that is safety. I ride Metro all the time and I rarely see someone who isn't hurt or doing something completely obscene like masturbating. The state of the system is trash. It needs better cleaning. It needs better security. Preferably there would be plain clothes officers to assist with the situation. Then you need the prosecutor to actually prosecute and not just drop cases left and right.
I have been using Metro less than less because of this very problem. A lot of people asked me is it worth it to take Metro and I always tell them no rent a car do not take the metro system at all in LA. The only two lines I would ever suggest someone as a tourist to take would be midday, And either the B from Universal Studios to downtown, Or the E line From downtown to Santa Monica. Again in all depends on where they're staying at and if they're really trying to experience LA train system.
But the answer is not to fuck up LA traffic flow to try and force drivers on to a transit system especially one that is extremely inefficient.
IMHO, the Answer with a campaign to improve its network in reliability, which will include some converted car lanes to bus lanes where it makes sense.
The other answer will lie to improve safety and reliability on the existing system on its rail network.
MetroLink will also need the step up which they claim they plan to operate more lines and later hours. There's been plenty of times I've wanted to use MetroLink and I was unable to because when I needed to return, they weren't running trains after 10 or 11.
To get serious regional and statewide mobility going this place needs to get off its ass and make the goddamn high-speed rail system happen.
But glorified street rail projects like the one happening on Van Nuys Blvd. is nothing but a money pit. Building a brand new light rail line like the K line and then shutting it down at Centinella so they can construct a grade separated bridge when they should've done that to begin with is not the answer.
Part of it is also going to be better competency on Metro part when it comes to building new lines and planning better. You sit here and tell us we're not adding any new lanes to freeways because it's going to adversely affect nearby communities and it's only gonna add to nearby traffic but don't worry just wait 30 to 40 years from now.
The high desert corridor freeway needs to be built. 605 and 710 Freeways need to be expanded. Other roads like the 405 and the 10 one need to have Xpress lanes added to them at least two in each direction whether they be elevated or place below ground. See I-635 how this can happen. Several interchange need to be completely rebuilt in modernized like the 101 and the 405, I-5/710 and I-605/I-5, express lanes extension from DTLA to the current ones and then east to SB County line. The 710 tunnel needs to be built. Several missing connections at existing interchanges need to be added. And roads like the 126 need to be upgraded.
And yes, expensive subways are absolutely going to have to be part of the solution on the west side, especially.
These may not be popular and not cheap but we are talking about a mega Opolis of 21 million people in the greater Southern California metro area and that's just the amount of people that live here. That does not include the daytime population, which is higher given the amount of tourist and business we conducted here.
A lot of what I said, probably will never happen and looking down in the future, some assholes gonna come along and invent the teleporter making this all obsolete, but until that time comes things like addressing I-10 between the 405 and downtown need to be done.
Yes, there will be some pissed off people living nearby but you know what not everybody's gonna be happy with the situation in the outcome. A hell of a lot more people will use the highway than those that will be against it.
And asked for expensive subways they will absolutely be worth it. Just wait until the purple line opens up.
PS is anybody having more and more issues with their speech to text function on their phone? I use that a lot, but I'm gonna start using my computer again because I'm getting frustrated with mobile. I've just noticed it getting worse. It'll either write something different from what I said or it'll text something exactly as I said it and then just decide to delete it.
And just summarize my statement as best as I can in my opinion, the two solutions to what is a serious problem in Southern California regarding its mobility issues are this.
It's gonna be very expensive to fix.
Not everybody's gonna like it(that also includes me).
I also want to add there is a much cheaper way to do subway tunnels, which aren't costing about $1.8 billion per mile like the current purple line extension is between Beverly Hills and the Westwood VA.
It's not always feasible or possible, but when it is, it should be utilized more. It's also more disruptive, but good things are worth the wait.
It's called cut and cover.
My friend in New York City told me that's how the bulk of the New York City Subway was constructed. I also hear that's how they plan to extend the Avenue subway.
Quote from: cahwyguy on March 29, 2024, 09:48:32 AMQuote from: Quillz on March 28, 2024, 05:17:17 PMMight have been like this if not for the car industry. At one point LA (particularly the valley) had a cable car system similar to SF. If you've ever wondered why Sherman Way is as wide as it is, it's because the trolleys used to run down the center. There used to be trolleys and gondolas that would take you up to Mt. Wilson.
@Quillz is incorrect. In addition to being a roadgeek, I'm interested in the history of rail in Los Angeles. I've been a member out at Orange Empire Rwy Museum (now SCRM, https://socalrailway.org/) since 1985.
Yes, there were cable cars in Los Angeles. Never were they in the San Fernando Valley; they were concentrated in downtown LA, and only for a few years. THey were not financially successful.
I don't recall PE ever running to Mt. Wilson. The Mt. Lowe line did run to the trailhead (see https://www.erha.org/penml.htm ) PE never ran gondolas. The Mt. Lowe line consisted of a conventional trolley line, a funicular, and a narrow gague line to the tavern at the top.
The density of PE and rail in the valley was extremely poor -- perhaps about as good as Metro's rail system might eventually be: There was the line that ran to North Hollywood through the pass, and the line that ran along Sherman Way (now Chandler), N. Sherman Way (now Van Nuys), and Sherman Way (now, uh, Sherman Way) to Owensmouth (now Canoga Park). There was a branch that continued up N Sherman Way to Parthenia, curved, across to Sepulveda, up to Brand, curved, and into San Fernando. That was it for much of the valley, although there were more lines to Burbank and Glendale. The Brand branch was gone by the 1930s, at least for passengers (it still served freight); the SFV line by the early 1950s.
What killed the rail? Not the cars or any conspiracy, but money. The PUC refused to allow rate increases for the rail lines, and without rate increases, PE couldn't improve vehicles. Many cars running in the 1950s were coaches from the 1910s. The PCC cars helped on some lines, but no cars had air conditioning or good suspension. Don't believe me? You can still ride them out at OERM/SCRM. Further, the streets were getting crowded, any many lines still ran shared with street traffic. There were a few private RoWs -- Sherman Way, Santa Monica, San Vicente, Glendale, Huntington. PE increasingly fought back by shutting down lines and moving to buses (although in the LATL and first MTA eras, the PUC didn't allow any rail line closures, although their weren't many left then).
One might argue that what killed the PE was that it was never designed as a transit line -- that wasn't its purpose. It was designed to sell real estate (1st), move local freight (2nd), and perhaps transport workers (3rd). Getting cars off the street wasn't its goal. The density of the city it helped create didn't support that. The road network and cars stitched together the multiple suburbs and communities in the LA basin into a rough conglomerate, and the legal decisions regarding water made it all one city (you wanted the water, you had to join the city). As always, no history is clean.
Los Angeles doesn't have the density to support traditional rail transit, and just like with cybersecurity (my professional specialty), attempting to retrofit is doesn't work. Adding subways and rail at this point is far too expensive, and will always be too little to late. One answer, which is slowly happening despite the NIMBYs, is to increase density along existing corridors, and improve those corridors.
So, folks like @Plutonic Panda will argue that widening and increasing roads will be the answer, and more freeways (such as the unbuilt ones) will solve things. That's not true either, as new freeways are as expensive as new rail lines, and often impact more people at the surface (really bad PR). Widening only improves things temporarily; I don't think anyone can point to a widening of a road in an urban area that has improved throughput after 5-6 years. There is concern about increased greenhouse gases (and increasing traffic doesn't help that -- even moving to electric doesn't help depending on where the power is sourced). The current approach seems to be pushing people to do more locally (less VMT), but is fighting against an existing infrastructure that encourages road use simply by where we place businesses and commerce.
There is no good or easy solution. Well, perhaps there is: Electric flying cars. Didn't they promise us those? But lacking that, on the ground, none of our answers will work. As such, many of our debates here are just pissing into the wind (but be careful lest the wind change direction).
The answers we are going to have are going to be incremental: An AUX lane here, a new rail lane there (cough, East SF Valley), some new bus infrastructure (cough, the new lanes on Sepulveda), new bike lines in flatlands, reworked areas for active transportation where there are loads of pedestrians, moving the personal vehicles to side streets and having only transit in those areas (and making that transit more frictionless in terms of ease of use) (cough, Hollywood); having more rail between the ports and logistic/transfer hubs, reducing truck traffic; and, yes, perhaps even congestion pricing, although that hurts some segments of the community disproportionally.
Daniel
Thanks for clarifying some of those points about the SF Valley. I haven't studied it in some time, there was a college course I did about transportation and there was a presentation on the early mass transit of the LA Area.