Every time a politician anywhere in the world suggests adding more freeways or more lanes to freeways, I think they should be forced to live in LA for a year and do a ~1 hour commute each way in traffic.
They need to see first hand what happens when you just add more freeways and more lanes. It's not good.
I had a conversation recently with someone lamenting that we didn't have roads like LA here in Boston. Saying their ideal road was 3 lanes, plus a bike lane, plus a bus lane in each direction. Imagine being a pedestrian trying to cross that!
I really don't understand someone who looks at that traffic disaster and wants to build the same thing here at home.
They're a car-centric person who wants the "nuisance" of bikes and busses out of their way while still pretending to have progressive values. People who only drive from garage to shopping center and back, never having to experience the dehumanizing impact of 6+ lanes affecting other transport modes.
This seems pretty counter intuitive but this is often the other way around. The safest streets in Europe are where cars, bikes and pedestrian mix together. It force focus on the driving task instead of doing something else. If you are interested, Freakonomics have an episode: "Why the U.S. so good at killing pedestrian". It's an interesting discussion with no simple answer.
It's because US streets are designed much wider than equivalent European streets. US design standards have wider LOS than Europe so they design for faster vehicle travel and higher throughput, which puts pressure on slower modes. This comes at a financial costs (better pavement, wider roads) but the US gladly pays a fortune for roads.
As an equal-parts driver, biker, e-scooter rider and pedestrian, this is horrible. Yes, you have to focus on the driving, or walking, or scooting, but you're in constant stress because you can accidentally hit someone coming from any direction. Or they can hit you.
It's far better to have separate spaces, and cross only when you really have to.
Maybe you should be stressed? The point might be that environments where you're not stressed because they lull you into a false sense of security tend to kill more pedestrians.
You're moving tons of metal at high speeds. Don't get too comfortable doing that.
Why do you assume I'm the driver in this case? I'm stressed as a pedestrian too.
You really think it's healthy to be stressed all the time?
I live in Israel and we've had pro-democracy demonstrations in a main intersection in Tel Aviv, every Saturday for the past 30 weeks. There are people and bikes all around but no cars and no motorcycles. It's ridiculous how calming it is to be on the street and not have to worry about hitting someone or getting hit.
Also, when I'm on the freeway, though I'm moving tons of metal are even higher speeds, I'm somehow less stressed. I'm alert, I'm actively driving, but less stressed - because the frequency of surprising events happening is low. In the city there are jaywalkers, kids, tiny bikes with no lights, e-scooters, buses pulling in and out of stations, gas scooters cutting you off. It's completely different.
I have also seen cars go 60+ km/h through traffic-calmed cul-de-sacs where children were playing on the street. Are you saying that only cyclists emulate Carmageddon in real life?
In that area you will find highways, surface streets, bike paths, pedestrian walkways, trams, commuter trains and other kinds of transportation in a way that comes across as elegant, at least to me.
Or maybe better the cognitive load? There are various studies that show removing white lines and navigation furniture to make junctions more of a puzzle, decreases speeds and increases attention and safety.
That's someone who's never actually had to drive in LA traffic. I only had to visit once for the experience of 3 straight hours of gridlock traffic just to get across the city to be seared into my brain.
I’ve lived in LA for five years now and lived in Boston for seven years prior. They’re both uniquely terrible.
LA’s roads are easy to imagine because it’s synonymous with huge interstates, congestion, and long commutes.
Boston is terrible because it’s layout makes zero intuitive sense and looks like spaghetti when viewed from the sky. Of course Boston predates the automobile, so I understand why.
I do enjoy the prevalence of bike culture in Boston. It’s just the right size to pedal most places and there are fairly good accomodations for cycling, like bike lanes.
But hey, at least I don’t live in Philadelphia. By far the worst driving experience each time I visit. :)
Funnily I live in LA and have a one-hour commute each way. But I drive a Vespa and am therefore limited to taking the side streets.
I don’t mind it all that much, aside from the distance. One thing that helps is that motor bikes are permitted to split lanes and thus I can flow through congested traffic quite easily. It’s quite fun and I find that it allows me to enter a flow state more readily and it takes some of the edge off of the whole traffic experience because I get to keep moving.
Try Massachusetts. You drive just as far, there are hardly any businesses to patronize on your commute (except for maybe two Dunkin Donuts), sometimes traffic is going 95 mph at 1am in the morning on Rt 128 in heavy rain, and it snows.
The reason LA doesn't have bike lanes is that LA City Councilmembers have fought back bike lanes for years. It's zero sum thinking. The Councilmembers think that making driving worse for cyclists hurts the dominant mode so hurts the most people, even though many of the arterials in LA just cannot be expanded because of existing businesses, homes, and ROWs.
I lived in a place for most of my life that refused to build freeways "because they didn't want to become like LA" meanwhile more people moved there, traffic got worse. Going "across town" about 15 miles was a burden. You hated to do it. I then moved to a town that had a few freeways and 15 miles away was considered close. The town I grew up in, finally built some cross town roads, and travel time improved.
I think you can have too many freeways, but you can definitely have to few
I think the problem with the town you grew up in is that they didn't build any good modes of transportation and not that they didn't build freeways. Sure freeways can fix the problem of people getting from point A to point B, but they're probably one of the worse ways to go about it. Street cars, bus rapid transit, metros, etc., are all better across the board even for the people who do want to drive because it allows non-drivers to get to point B without a car, thereby clearing up traffic for the drivers.
In a town that is very forward out, almost any form of public transportation is worse than cars.
And while I agree that public transportation helps. My current turn has horrible transportation abs more freeways and it is far easier to get around in than my old town.
I grew up in a similar place, which had too few freeways around it and navigating anywhere was a major headache. Now I live in a highly walkable town near a few freeways, and it’s much nicer; I can avoid driving altogether and walk/bike around town, or I can easily get to the nearby city by car. There’s a happy medium to be found.
I'd say split it half and half, 6 months LA to learn the pain of the wrong way, then 6 months in a place with proper transit like Amsterdam or Seoul, then they come back with a vision of what could be.
LA is by no means the worst that America has to offer. At least within a 1 hour radius you have a staggering population and amount of commerce available. People visiting LA from "average" places in the U.S. will note that it's really dense, about as dense as the outer boroughs of New York City. If it's "sprawling" it is not because it is uneconomical in the use of space but because the whole area that is habitable is crammed with people.
In Southern New Hampshire people drive almost as far although there is hardly anything to drive to. The confluence of Route 101 and I-93 south of Manchester is as bad as anything you'll find in a city 100 times Manchester's size leaving the question of where the hell all these cars are coming from and where they are going.
(The answer is that the population is dispersed over a large area with a hierarchical road network that, as much as possible, wants to be like your lungs. Thus you always get stuck in traffic at several bottlenecks on your drive that you can't avoid.)
They need to see first hand what happens when you just add more freeways and more lanes. It's not good.