🛣 Headlines About California Highways – December 2023

[Alps]

I disagree with a road diet in Malibu. That is a traffic chokepoint on CA 1 as it is. It needs traffic calming perhaps, but keep the lane balance plzkthx. (Signal progression would be good if it's not there now, so that traffic moves in a lump and then all stops to clear the road for others.)

[Occidental Tourist]

It looks like a mod deleted my response to Plutonic Panda.  Not sure why as it wasn't profane and it was less insulting than his response to me.  I've got no interest in burning any more calories on a board where mods play favorites.  Be well, everyone.

[cahwyguy]

It looks like a mod deleted my response to Plutonic Panda.  Not sure why as it wasn't profane and it was less insulting than his response to me.  I've got no interest in burning any more calories on a board where mods play favorites.  Be well, everyone.

Well, I'd like to urge you to continue here, simply because at times you've posted stuff that has proven useful or provides useful history or background.

As for PP: I disagree with him, but it is clear his mindset aligns with the 1950s roadbuilders and not with today, where widen-forever isn't the answer. But forums are a really bad place to try to change minds, so at a point you just give up trying. It only serves to annoy the onlookers.

[Scott5114]

It looks like a mod deleted my response to Plutonic Panda.  Not sure why as it wasn't profane and it was less insulting than his response to me.  I've got no interest in burning any more calories on a board where mods play favorites.  Be well, everyone.

If you seriously see no difference between "this particular idea is dumb" and "your entire post history is dumb" and think someone deleting the latter (and not applying any actual punishment) in the hopes of refocusing the discussion on something actually interesting to read is "playing favorites", then I'm not really sure what to tell you.

[Quillz]

Just don't respond to him. He hasn't moved beyond the 1950s and ignores every logical reason put forth for why things don't happen the way he wants them to.

He also ignored that if he wants these things, his taxes will go up. I assume he's fine with that?

[Plutonic Panda]

Just don't respond to him. He hasn't moved beyond the 1950s and ignores every logical reason put forth for why things don't happen the way he wants them to.

He also ignored that if he wants these things, his taxes will go up. I assume he's fine with that?

I've advocated for higher taxes or in some way shape or form finding new streams of revenue like a per mile tax that will help offset the reduction of fuel taxes collected due to hybrids, EVs, and general increase in MPGs on a lot of cars. Even as anti toll as I am I've said if we don't do these things then use tolls.

You can say I'm stuck in the the 1950s all you want, whatever the that means, but I've supported pretty much most of every mass transit project I come across. I attend tons of Metro meetings and use rail/bus nearly every day. I'm about to hop on the red line in LA in a few minutes. I see how valuable passenger rail. I also see how valuable surface transportation like freeways and roads are. So please explain how I'm stuck in the 1950s. I've had a couple people say this before and they've never specific what it is other than claiming I'm anti transit which isn't true. It is just because I support increasing capacity on highways and streets that need it in certain places that make sense?

[Quillz]

You can say I'm stuck in the the 1950s all you want, whatever the that means,

In this context, it means your solutions to traffic issues are to continually add freeways, widen freeways, build roads through mountains, build tunnels underneath the ocean, and so on. Your solutions are to just keep adding and expanding on the assumption there is infinite time, money, resources, and land. While ignoring that there not every piece of land can be built on, or should be built on.

This is the 1950s mindset, when every single last mile in Los Angeles was going to be a freeway. Routes that exist today like CA-23 and CA-33 were planned to be full freeways. There were full freeways in San Francisco. There was a recent thread about a Eureka freeway bypass. These were the days when it was just assumed things could be built forever without stopping, and there was little, if any, thought given to how all this impacts the environment. And who cares if neighborhoods get displaced?

This isn't "wrong" at all, believe whatever you want. But the problem is it's not realistic. You're not the first person to advocate for these positions, and there is decades upon decades of research and plenty of good reasons why these things don't happen. And every time people make completely logical arguments as to why these ideas have never become reality, you just ignore them and keep going back to your notions of just building forever and widening and widening. Sooner or later widening involves eminent domain. What if it's your house? Sooner or later expansion takes up more land. Both of these put more cars onto the road, increasing traffic and pollution. Despite the claims you often make, freeways increase traffic, they do not reduce it.

[Quillz]

It is just because I support increasing capacity on highways and streets that need it in certain places that make sense?

Your earlier post about how there should be a 40-mile undersea tunnel to Oxnard makes sense to you?

And who is deciding what "makes sense?" Narrowing a road to allow for safer bike transportation makes sense to bikers, who don't want to be hit by cars. Narrowing a road so it has wider sidewalks makes sense to walkers, who may not feel safe walking alongside traffic. They have plenty of proposals that make sense for their needs. It depends entirely on view point and what is important to you. You have a 1950s-era mindset of endless expansion and widening. Again, fine, you can believe anything you like. But it's like anything else, what you think makes sense may not to someone else. Decisions come from democracy and committee, not always the best way to do things, but it's how things are done. Just some months ago, there were activists who said how much sense it made to remove the Marina Freeway. Should we have done that? It makes plenty of sense to some people.

[Quillz]

And if you feel those ideas don't make sense, the question is then: why do the things that make sense to you matter more? Everyone has ideas about how to better improve traffic flow. In a way you seem a bit contradictory in wanting increased expansion and tunneling and widening and new pavement while also supposedly being all for mass transit, which is generally the inverse of these ideas.

[J N Winkler]

I'm aware the undersea tunnel won't happen here but Norway seems to have no problems building them.

Have you checked what is going on with Rogfast recently?  The cost of NOK 16.8 billion originally projected at the time construction started (in 2018) has now ballooned to NOK 24.9 billion, and completion has been pushed further out.  Personally, I will be pleasantly surprised if there are no further delays or cost increases.

[Plutonic Panda]

You can say I'm stuck in the the 1950s all you want, whatever the that means,

In this context, it means your solutions to traffic issues are to continually add freeways, widen freeways, build roads through mountains, build tunnels underneath the ocean, and so on. Your solutions are to just keep adding and expanding on the assumption there is infinite time, money, resources, and land. While ignoring that there not every piece of land can be built on, or should be built on.

This is the 1950s mindset, when every single last mile in Los Angeles was going to be a freeway. Routes that exist today like CA-23 and CA-33 were planned to be full freeways. There were full freeways in San Francisco. There was a recent thread about a Eureka freeway bypass. These were the days when it was just assumed things could be built forever without stopping, and there was little, if any, thought given to how all this impacts the environment. And who cares if neighborhoods get displaced?

This isn't "wrong" at all, believe whatever you want. But the problem is it's not realistic. You're not the first person to advocate for these positions, and there is decades upon decades of research and plenty of good reasons why these things don't happen. And every time people make completely logical arguments as to why these ideas have never become reality, you just ignore them and keep going back to your notions of just building forever and widening and widening. Sooner or later widening involves eminent domain. What if it's your house? Sooner or later expansion takes up more land. Both of these put more cars onto the road, increasing traffic and pollution. Despite the claims you often make, freeways increase traffic, they do not reduce it.

You conveniently leave out my advocacy for mass transit alongside it as well. Do you see me calling for widening the cross Bronx freeway to 20 lanes? No because it doesn't make sense and induced demand would be the culprit here. You are cherry picking my opinions and twisting my words.

[Quillz]

If you don't like people criticizing your opinions, don't post them.

[Plutonic Panda]

And if you feel those ideas don't make sense, the question is then: why do the things that make sense to you matter more? Everyone has ideas about how to better improve traffic flow. In a way you seem a bit contradictory in wanting increased expansion and tunneling and widening and new pavement while also supposedly being all for mass transit, which is generally the inverse of these ideas.

How many bikers would ride that road if they narrowed compared to the demand and how many cars would use it? The answer is fairly obvious. You have no idea how bad this road gets backed up and there's others ways than needing a 40 mile undersea tunnel to make it safer for cyclists without needing to remove lanes as I've suggested.

You're suggesting I can't be a supporter for mass transit and support what I feel to be logical freeway and road expansions which is obtuse.

[Plutonic Panda]

If you don't like people criticizing your opinions, don't post them.

Huh? Where did I say I don't want you to criticize my opinions? Criticize them all you want that's why I'm on a discussion board to talk about them. You're the one calling for people to ignore me.

[Quillz]

If you don't like people criticizing your opinions, don't post them.

Huh? Where did I say I don't want you to criticize my opinions? Criticize them all you want that's why I'm on a discussion board to talk about them. You're the one calling for people to ignore me.

I was referring to the other poster that claimed his post was deleted for responding to you. I told him to just ignore you if he has an issue with you.

[Plutonic Panda]

If you don't like people criticizing your opinions, don't post them.

Huh? Where did I say I don't want you to criticize my opinions? Criticize them all you want that's why I'm on a discussion board to talk about them. You're the one calling for people to ignore me.

I was referring to the other poster that claimed his post was deleted for responding to you. I told him to just ignore you if he has an issue with you.

Oh my bad, I misinterpreted what you said then.

Trust me, I am all for increasing active and mass transit options. But in LA though they need to do something about the safety and security, especially on the red line.

I've never been in a city that has a true world-class functioning mass transit system, but I can see the value of having it. I also find it extremely embarrassing that the United States doesn't even have a single true high-speed rail line.