| | Whenever I discuss transportation and traffic problems here in Southern California, I get a uniform response. The same line is found in the print media, on TV, the radio, and across the internet.
"What do you expect? It's LA."
And?
BIG FREAKING DEAL.
I "expect" there be no summary dismissal of ideas that do not focus on the internal combustion engine to solve the problems of moving humans from point A to point B in one of the world's biggest metropolital regions. Since when is it OK to accept defeat of a perfectly sound solution to an entrenched problem by invoking some sort of mystical prohibition on said solution? What I mean to say is
HOW DOES THIS BEING LOS ANGELES HAVE ANYTHING TO DO WITH NOT CONSTRUCTING NEW RAIL LINES?
I apologize if my shout-typing offends you, but I repeatedly get the impression that no one is listening.
Currently, the history of transportation in this area has three parts:
-- how great buliders boldly brought railroads into this metropolis, connecting it to the rest of the nation for the first time and giving it a unitary sense of identity
-- how the leadership and people foolishly tore out the bulk of the rail lines in the area and opted for a system centered on the private gasoline burning automobile
-- how the smog in this area was proven to come from the millions of private cars but a massive freeway system was still built and the last vestges of the mighty Pacific Electric Railway were torn down for the benefit of the petrol burning motorist.
I should append this list with one more part, about how the people clamor for a solution to the mindnumbing traffic that holds it hostage twice daily but the only action taken is to build more roads. And, may I ask, what is the goal of adding a single lane to a freeway ten-lanes across and packed to the gills? A lane of freeway only has the capacity to carry a thousand vehicles per hour. A train, which takes up only a twenty foot wide corridor, has the capacity for 10,000 to 30,000 depending on the method used. Another problem: expanding a freeway means knocking down homes or building dangerous multi-decked roadways that easily collapse in an earthquake. A train can dive below ground, be vaulted into the air on a narrow viaduct, or squeeze between buildings.
"But Zajac, this is LA. Do you really expect people to get out of their nice air conditioned cars and cram in to a small, standing room only train?"
Yes I do.
There exists a certain pecking order in the world of transporation. Faster and more convenient always wins over slower and more cumbersome. Normally, a car is simpler and faster than everything else, if the roads are traffic free. A bus is stuck in the same traffic that a car is in, only it must stop to let people on and off, dropping the average speed to a fourth that of a car (in other words, a bus is four times slower than a car, no matter what). Trains, in contrast, use a special right of way and operate on a fixed schedule. If you miss your bus, you may wait over 30 minutes for the next one as it crawls through traffic. Another train may pop up in as little as five minutes. In public transit, standing room only happens, but on a bus it lurches back and forth, bouncing with every bump, and the AC is always busted. A train glides along steel rails, the only noticable shifts are the acceleration and deceleration near a station, and the AC always is working.
"But Zajac, this is a decentralized metropolis. The population density is too low for a train in this or any other area."
Wrong again. The decentralized sprawl of Southern California was a byproduct of an earthquake-safety law and the monopoly on transportation granted to the car. Up until the late sixties, a 13-floor height limit was placed on any buildings in fear of an earthquake. When the sixties rolled around, the engineering of skyscrapers was safer so as to make the height limit non-sense. Any current limits are in the interest of preventing more traffic from clogging the roads. It is precisly because of the automobile that Southern California is so spread out. As areas became more developed, the land value rose, so people looked to places farther from the historic core to build upon. Becuase the car was so ubiquitous, the ease of access to these newly developed lands was the same if not better than the older sites. This is OK except that it pushes affordable middle-class housing further and further away from centers of employment. Housing may have decentralized, but employment has re-centralized in a pattern that contradicts the sprawl. New office buildings have risen not in the outer fringe (an area best utilized by industry and big-box retailers) but in the core. A small business will seek an area where it can operate closest to its customer/client base. A home buyer will seek out a safe, affordable neighborhood. These two areas usually do not overlap. A denser customer base will offset the higher property costs for a business while a more affordable home will offset the longer commute time. As an area fills up with people looking for housing, commute times will lengthen as the roads are jammed with more cars. Witness the Inland Empire: while many cities like Ontario have expanded their industrial sector the growth in housing has primarily been to people who work and continue to drive to Los Angeles or Orange Counties. There has even been an unexpected spike in people who commute into and out San Diego on a daily basis, traversing the empty hills and shoreline flanking Camp Pendleton.
"Sure, the freeways are jammed, but if people don't live or work close to freeways, they often have to drive quite a bit on local roads at either end before reaching their destination. Trains only go between stations."
Astute observation! A freeway is useless unless it connects to the local street grid. Take away the ability to drive the freeway as only part of the trip, and a freeway is useless. Likewise, a single train is superfluous. One may drive towards and away from one station, but unless the destination is close to a station, thhere is no point in even considering it as an option. That is why I do not advocate for a train in this area or on that corridor, but a complete and total network of trains. A Bus Riders Union worker once told me that a train was just like a bus, except that it was limited to the tracks it rides on while a bus can be re-routed wherever there is a city street (Francisca Porchas, you know you are!). This simplistic observation leaves out the basic differences that exist between a bus and a train. You wait for the bus, you wait a long time and ride for a long time and are uncomfortable when you're done. You wait for the train and it comes quickly, is fast in getting to your stop, and is comfortable to use. A bus can be re-routed, but is still locked in traffic. A train may be stuck in its tracks, but it can move and its riders can connect far more quickly to another train.
That's the big point. Buses, used to connect to other buses, are the ones locked up in traffic. Trains can be strung together much more efficiently. But only if the other train is built.
Every time an opinion piece or an editorial is run in the press, a rhetorical statement is made concewrning the mission and purpose of the MTA or public transportation in general. One I see again and again is that, "It exists to provide transit to the poor." No it doesn't! The Los Angeles County Metroploitan Transportation Authority exists to provide transportation to the People of Los Angeles County, all ten million of us, not mearly the 500,000 who ride the bus, and certainly not the 3000 dues paying members of the Bus Riders Union. You could pack the streets and freeways will buses but the speed of a commute will not rise above 12 miles an hour. Criss-cross the metropolis with trains--not just a skeliton system like today--and the average speed will soar above and beyond that of the car commuter.
|
| | Posted 7/24/2007 1:31 PM - 189 Views - 8 eProps - 5 comments
- recommend
  - recs0
- share
- email
 - sent0
|
