Quote:
Originally Posted by plutonicpanda
First off a big part of the climate in LA consists of the marine layer which is often associated with smog. Though smog gets mixed in with this, I am aware of it. Freeways don't cause smog-- cars do. I've made this argument many times here and so far no one has disputed it. The engine of the car is what causes pollution as well as other various components contributing to fine particulate emissions.
Yes I care greatly about the environment as I hike and explore it all the time. I am a Sierra Club Member, I donate to WWF, have an America the Great Pass I use the shit out of, etc. I care about mobility just as much and unless you want to live in a cave or force everyone to pander to your version of what you decide is most efficient, we need freeways. Far too many posters on this forum have their heads in the sand, respond with stupid and snide remarks, and provide no argument other than induced demand(!!!) or the environment with no further insight.
We have a severe housing shortage because of problems created by the liberal government in the state and on local levels. Removing several thousand housing units won't worsen it and arguably will make it better by allowing better mobility and fostering a healthy economy as such. Some homes torn down, property owners and renters properly compensated, and other areas of the city become more dense because of it. This is done all the time in other countries and used to be the way here until the same people constantly opposing the housing you want got too much clout blocking freeways from being built. Arguably decisions, more than likely made of out of racist spite, the plow through minority prominent communities were practical, though again racist, and the best path forward was many of the routes. That wasn't always the case, yet where the racism becomes perfectly evident is the rich, white communities that were successful in stopping these routes. Wealth is also a factor. With all of that said, it has become tricky to build new surface freeway routes as ones that are needed for regional efficiency through impoverished or minority strong communities are shot down as racist. The rich raise a stink and then go onto to complain about traffic after they shoot down a good proposal out of selfishness.
So yes I am suggesting were tear down "thousands" of units and that is not of the slightest reasons new freeways in LA to connect gaps are a political non-starter. You should calm down which you clearly aren't based on your post. You should rest easy knowing what I want ain't happening, chief. Now now and not for a long while if ever. The HDC(if built), SR-138, and CA 70 are likely the last freeways ever constructed in LA county. It is getting almost impossible to simply widen freeways as shown by the 710. We shall see how the 105 and 405 widening proposals go. I hope the most ambitious widening proposals are selected but I am skeptical they happen at all at this point.
The freeways I suggest built are tunneled using various methods(cut and cover where possible) and caps to better connect any communities divided and reduce the need for properties. With more and more freeways and roads not all of them have to be the monster 20 lane freeways that have become the norm in LA. With more connections many of these proposed freeways can be a measly 8 lanes and flow just fine.
https://la.curbed.com/2019/2/1/18204...n-trains-buses
Before blue line closures and shown ridership down. NOT entirely because of Blue line. |
You are so aggressive and in love with your arguments, it's quite a treat to watch. I just read through all your pro-freeway speech with much amusement.
You automatically assume the induced demand argument, before bringing up your own rock solid counter-argument that "it's basic math". You then proceed to talk about the freeway flow in Phoenix and OKC yet refer to no scientific data, before saying
my data is cherry picked and flawed
I would like you to point out to me which cities underwent massive freeway expansions and widening since 2010 with positive results on congestion. With actual data of course, not your own personal observations...
You mention that freeway expansion and widening needs to follow growth. That is exactly what freeway proponents were advancing in the 60's, which led to the massive urban sprawl (amongst other things) that makes public transit planning so difficult and expensive today. The same urban sprawl that has contributed to the destruction of the environment in hundreds of metropolitan areas on our continent and continues to do so today. You're a Sierra Club member, you should know that right?
So instead of talking about growth, why don't we talk about smart growth? AKA the contrary of what most U.S. cities have done in the past 50 years. And that is by creating, dense, walkable, transit-accessible neighborhoods where people don't need a car to get around. I know that seems like a strange concept in a country like yours, where driving is seen as a right for a lot of people (as opposed to a privilege), but this is actually the way to build cities which pollute a lot less, in which citizens are healthier and where space is used much more efficiently. By not doing that, we are moving faster towards a planet which has no future.
You point at London as having failed with their congesting pricing scheme, yet London has seen a 7% raise in public transport mode share since the pricing was implemented in 2003, and an 11% drop in private transport mode share (source:
https://twitter.com/peterwalker99/st...32290067345409). Funny how your arguments seem a lot less solid when deconstructed with actual data.
You declare that cars are "being safer and safer" and that the grade-separation of freeways is king in transportation safety. Assuming that you also consider public transit, biking, walking as modes of transportation, how do you explain that you are seven times more likely to die by driving than by walking? For cycling, it's 40 times more, and let's not even mention public transit. So no, freeways are not the king in transportation safety, they’re the very opposite. Not even mentioning that cars also cause the majority of pedestrian and cycling deaths.
I love how you mention that you care greatly about the environment ("I contribute to the WWF"
) yet go to great lengths to defend one of the biggest polluters (20% of CO2 emissions in the U.S. come from personal vehicles) and the very culture that has contributed to speeding up global warming (automobile dependency and urban sprawl). Oh, and also a top five leading cause of mortality in the U.S (accidents), not mentioning the many studies on the decline of health related to the pollution emitted by these same vehicles.
Sure, you say there is nothing wrong with being anti-freeway, I say there is everything wrong with being pro-freeway.
Prev
Linear Mode
