Do you think priorities can ever change, if they are demanded?

I think that’s up to us. Some friends and I have mounted a campaign of large freeway sign postings, and we will be literally driving traffic to a web site to promote rail in Los Angeles by harnessing road rage into political action. In particular I’m interested in rail on or parallel to the 405, and integration with bike paths.

Suggestions?

Absolutely. The modus operandi of neighborhood associations in our region generally is NIMBY opposition to everything. William Fulton in the Reluctant Metropolis discusses how these kind of groups have shaped our built landscape. Sherman Oaks, Los Feliz and Miracle Mile are examples of areas with very organized associations of this type, able to flood a public hearing with residents declaiming that “[fill in the blank] will ruin our neighborhood”. They get quoted in the media (e.g. the aforementioned Mr. Close or Richard H. Close of the Sherman Oaks Neighborhood Association) and often have to means to make bureaucracies blink. Bloggers often carelessly talk of storming city hall or undertaking a ballot measure or mounting an effort to pass legislation. It is mostly big talk. But these uber activist/homeowner bigwig types are the real deal. Close, for instance, played a key role in the passage of Proposition 13 and the recent new charter for the city of Los Angeles, as outlined in his biography posted on the website of the law firm he works at:

http://www.gilchristrutter.com/Bio/RichardClose.asp

These are formidable opinion leaders, and have influence even though their motives are often self-serving and/or derived from knee-jerk impulses. Unlike us ordinary folks, their op-eds don’t languish or end up only being posted online. :-(

We have a desperate bottleneck along this route, and rail is orders of magnitude more dense than freeway lanes. We also need to connect several extant or emerging East-West rail lines (Expo, Subway to Sea, Green Line) which have no North-South connection West of downtown. It’s also politically next to impossible to acquire new rights of way. In my mind, these three problems cry out for a 405 rail.

Stations could be elevated, underpassed, or situated off the freeway in order to moderate the noise and pollution.

Aren’t we spending around $1 billion to accommodate those HOV lanes? The Green Line (down the center of the 105) cost less than $1 billion, and is 17 miles long.

Many key destinations are right near the 405 from the LAX Green Line station on North all the way to the 101, where it could turn right and hook up with the Red Line in North Hollywood. Loop Complete.

——————–

Sometimes taller IS smarter.

LA does NOT need denser land usage. Density could be increased in some areas, but more density often just brings more cars parked on the street and more traffic. During the housing boom, perfectly functional single family neighborhoods were being ripped out in the Valley and turned into condos. Now they are low income housing and foreclosures. We need to think smarter, not taller.

-Paul

In many cases, yes. There is a decreased marginal benefit to adding a lane to an already congested freeway with each lane you add. I don’t know if the 405 has reached a point of no return, so to speak. But it’s worth studying.

But I would lobby for carpool lanes that only allow 3 or more passengers per vehicle during rush hour. I would lobby Metro to utilize those lanes for express bus services, the kind you see on I-10.

Then say, “Hey, we’ll lighten up on the opposition to this freeway if we can get a north-south rail alternative to the 405 going…” Why wouldn’t compromise like that work?

Adding freeway lanes to battle congestion is like fighting obesity by buying larger pants.

I agree with this actually. The 710 Freeway needs to be fixed at both ends and will require a road solution.

My point is more about NIMBYs in general who think that they can halt any and all transportation improvements. Measure R has funds for a Sepulveda project. Eventually SOMETHING will be built through Encino. Encino residents might want to get proactive so that what is built is something friendlier to them. If they take a “just say no” attitude, they may end up with something rammed down their throats that they really don’t like.

Mass transit should be attractive based on its own merits, not just because traffic is awful. Rail should be built to be as quick and efficient as possible. If a train stops at intersections it makes the line much less attractive to a driver. He’ll ask, “What’s the point?” and return to his car.

Go lobby for a half-assed light rail alternative to the 405 instead of a freeway widening. Traffic will still be awful on the 405 and the transit riders will still be depressed.

I think most would agree that always opposing freeway widening projects would be exactly as silly as supporting EVERY rail proposal.

The good news is that if they’re taking federal dollars the carpool has to be three per car. Only California considers a parent taking one child to soccer practice a carpool.

There are many Los Angelenos longing for Sam Yorty’s Los Angeles who really need a time machine more than anything in the real world.

Why don’t we offer a choice? You can widen the 405 or we can get started on a Sepulveda LRT between Sylar and LAX? The option not on the table is neither.

Exactly. They will grasp at straws to oppose any project, rail or freeway. So it’s confusing why this blog is suddenly rallying around the opponents of a freeway widening. They would just as quickly turn on mass transit.